Kruse Kronicle

DBE: Concluding Thoughts

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy

(Click here for Chapter Summaries Index)

Yesterday I posted the final chapter summary from Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. This was my second time working through the book from beginning to end, although some chapters have become dog-eared from my frequent reference to them. It truly is a remarkable volume.

Over the past several months, I have found that the book makes a wonderful topical reference for many of the hotly contested issues within the debate about gender roles and service in the church. Each article is written well and extensively footnoted. That has been invaluable for pursuing other tangents. The reality is that many of the articles could easily be expanded into full-length books. The book was written in response to the CBMW's Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood volume, and it works well as such a response.

As with any book, its greatest strength for one purpose means its weakness for another. This volume does not explicitly lay out a theology of complementarity without hierarchy. That can be gleaned while reading the book, but it doesn't start with a thesis and build toward it. Personally, I have found other books like Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry by Stanely Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo to be more helpful in that regard.

There were topics that I found myself wanting to know more about. The historical context was one of them. More specifically, the nonhierarcial complementarian position has only been around as a significant force for the past couple of centuries. The "equal in being, unequal in function" formula has not yet been around for thirty years. What were the positions and theological justifications of the church fathers for women being subordinate through the ages? Without this, there is no "baseline," if you will, from which to see how things have morphed to where we are today. Maybe it is just the sociologist in me, but I craved more historical context.

Second, what was the status and participation of women in the life and ministry of the New Testament Church? Nowhere in more than 500 pages is there one mention of Mary! Other women are mentioned in essays, but it seems that greater emphasis could have been made on Jesus' interaction with and with the women of the New Testament. In his book In God's Time: The Bible and the Future, Craig Hill writes about the "but in Christ" factor. You have statements throughout the Bible that read along the formula of "You have heard it said…but in Christ…." Many less explicit statements of this thinking are made by actions taken rather than words spoken. When the context is understood, and Jesus' actions are viewed, many act as dramatic "but in Christ" statements. Paul also has several of these implied "but in Christ" statements. I think the "but in Christ" evidence in Scripture is largely missing from the book and is some of the most persuasive for me.

Again, I emphasize that no book can address every angle of an enormously complex issue like this. It does very well for its intended purpose. I highly recommend it and have found it an invaluable reference tool. Don't trust my summaries for their merits. Read it for yourself. You won't be disappointed.

[Previous] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 17 (2nd Edition) – God Metaphor and Gender: Is the God of the Bible a Male Deity?

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 17 (2nd Edition)– God Metaphor and Gender: Is the God of the Bible a Male Deity? R. K. McGregor Wright.

Wright opens his essay with this:

The purpose of this essay is to show that there are no grounds in Scripture for the popular assumption that God is essentially masculine or male. (287)

Wright makes this critical observation:

While human beings typically come into the world either male or female, there are a very small number of hermaphrodites whose genes, for reasons still unclear to embryologists, fail to determine their sex in early development, thus producing a baby of mixed sexuality. It should be noted, however, that people with combination sexual organs exhibit otherwise normal human characteristics. Clearly, their personhood is more basic to their natures than their sex. The mere fact that there are now numbers of people who have experienced a “sex change,” and are living among us often unnoticed, shows that sex is a far more superficial category than personhood. It should also be noted that human beings share sexuality with horses and butterflies, and with many plants, though they do not so share the image of God with any of these. The creational evidence points to sexuality being based in biology rather than in spirituality. (287)

After his brief introductory remarks, Wright turns to questions about God and gender. He proceeds through the rest of the essay in a question/answer format.

Isn't it obvious from even a first reading of the Bible that Scripture usually refers to God as "he" and "him," suggesting that God is in some sense male? (288)

Few languages (including Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English) have a neuter pronoun. God is "person" but is not male or female. "It" is unsatisfactory because it does not reflect personhood. Male pronouns are used to designate both genders, and the only way to refer to God in a gender-neutral way is with male pronouns. Female pronouns would indicate that God is somehow sexed. Wright points out that Gentile gods were depicted as male and female. Sex drives were the forces that gave life to the universe. Thus, many pagan religions included sexual activity with temple prostitutes as ritual acts that honored the primordial forces. God was uniquely referred to in a gender-neutral way to avoid this confusion with pagan religion.

If humans – who are sexual beings – are made in the image of God, then doesn't this mean that God must be sexual or gendered in some sense? (289)

Sexuality is a created good for reproduction, not the extension of divine character. Human beings share traits with God like rationality, language, the ability to choose, the ability to love, and moral character. Sexuality is part of the created order, just as humans are, but it is not indicative of God's nature.

But wasn't Jesus a man rather than a woman? Doesn't this tell us something about the gender of God? (290)

Jesus had to come as a man or a woman to be fully human. Wright does not go into why Jesus was male but points out that his coming as male does not somehow now introduce maleness into the Trinity.

If God is without gender, then what does the Bible mean when it uses gendered imagery to describe God? (291)

Wright gives an extended discussion of metaphorical language here. He emphasizes that by the nature of who God is, any description of him will be metaphorical. Metaphors merely draw us to the truth of some aspect of the subject alluded to but should not be mistaken as a synonym for the subject itself. Thus, we find a rich variety of metaphors for God, including both male and female imagery.

But surely "Father" and "Son" are personal names for God, not just metaphors. As such, don't they tell us something fundamental about who God is and so point to God's masculine or male-like nature? (294)

The simplest answer to this is that the distinction between a name and a metaphor is not complete or definitive: a name may be metaphorical, or a metaphor may be used as a personal name. … God’s name would need to be established on more secure grounds than the assertion that Father is a personal name. (294-295)

Wright adds here that calling God "Mother" or "Mother-God" or gender-inclusive names is unjustifiable and actually interjects sexuality issues where there should be none.

If God is not essentially masculine or gendered in any sense, then why does the Bible use predominantly masculine language to describe God? God is often called "Father" but never "Mother." (295-296)

The first observation on the claim that God must be masculine because he is never called “Mother” is that it is an argument from silence and is therefore invalid. (296)

Wright points out that "Trinity" is never used to describe God in the Bible, yet all the essential elements testify to the existence of the Trinity. Wright gives a substantial list of feminine metaphors for God to show that God was not considered male.

The predominance of male imagery is in part an accommodation to a patriarchal culture… It is in part a byproduct of the limitations of language… Masculine images of God signify anthropomorphic metaphors only. Our heavenly Father does not have the eternal attribute of divine masculinity any more than he has the eternal attribute of divine chickenhood. (297)

Every systematic theology refers to the "fatherhood of God." If this key theological concept does not speak of God's masculinity, then why is God referred to as "Father"? (297)

Accordingly, when Christians call God “our Father,” nothing is being said of God’s gender, but only that God is the one who gives life to everyone (Acts 17:25). Through regeneration God gives life to believers in an additional sense: protecting, training and disciplining  us like a father with his children (Heb 12:1-12). As with all metaphors, God may be Father in one sense but not in another. God describes himself as our Father because he acts like a father, first toward Jesus (MT 17:5) and then toward us (Eph 1:3, 1 Pet 1:3, 17). We are to emulate the relationship that Jesus has with his Father (Mt 6:9; Gal 4:6; I Jn 2:23-24) (298)

But surely an understanding of our divinely designated masculinity and femininity is crucial to our obedience to God and his Word. Isn't fulfilled manhood and womanhood a key biblical goal for the body of Christ? How could something be this important to God, yet have nothing to do with God's Nature? (299)

I thought Wright's final three paragraphs were important, so I present them here in their entirety:

The insistence that God be thought of as revealing an eternal masculinity is really on a reification (an ontologizing) of an abstraction never mentioned in the Bible. The ideas of “masculinity” and “femininity” are created by a process of abstraction from the physical sexual differences between human beings. These concepts are not defined or discussed in  Scripture. However, the extent to which these presuppositions control agenda of such a traditionalist text as Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is overwhelming – as we see in John Piper’s introductory chapter, where he promises to define these concepts and then offers behavioral illustrations but not definitions. Despite the verses he refers to, the Bible in fact sets forth no doctrine of universally and transculturally prescribed male and female roles that permit certain activities and behaviors for one gender and prohibit those behaviors for another gender – especially not with respect to spiritual status, gifts and ministries in the body of Christ, where the freedom and equality  of every believer in Christ is presented in the New Testament as a governing principle for the new covenant community.

When Piper tells us that differentiated roles for men and women “are never traced back to the fall of man and woman into sin,” he is no doubt correct, for the idea of “roles” is a modern sociological notion and the Bible never mentions it – neither in the Genesis narrative nor elsewhere. An oft-stated goal of evangelical traditionalists is fulfilled manhood and womanhood. Yet the Bible says nothing about this either, but rather exhorts all believers without distinction to be full of the Holy Spirit and conformed to the image of Christ. Since masculinity and femininity are concepts explicated nowhere in scripture, it is not surprising that the “definitions” Piper gives are actually summaries of his own conclusions about these two rather mystical reifications.

Our conclusion must be that there are no biblical grounds for the controlling influence of the ideas of “masculinity” and femininity” for our understanding of God’s essential nature. God is he because God is personal and “our Father” because God acts like a loving father. He is neither male nor female, nor a combination of both. Notions of a gendered God are intrinsic to a variety of paganisms, but are absent from a fully biblical Christianity. (299-300)

Author:

R. K. McGregor Wright received his Th.M. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Ph.D. from Denver University/Iliff School of Theology in historical theology. With his wife, Julia Castle, he codirects the Aquila and Priscilla Study Center, a Bible and apologetics teaching ministry in East Tennessee. He is the author of No Place for Sovereignty.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 29 – Toward Reconciliation: Healing the Schism

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part V: Living it Out (Practical Applications)

Chapter 29 – Toward Reconciliation: Healing the Schism. Alice P. Mathews.

Mathews begins this final essay in the book by pointing us to Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” The hierarchical view and the egalitarian views are paradigms. They are cohesive frameworks that tie the disparate pieces of scripture together for us. They are oriented around different themes. Some start with Galatians 3:28 and others with 1 Timothy 2:12. Furthermore, there are no “objective investigators.” We each come from a context with values and concerns, and those concerns deeply influence our perceptions.

Mathews argues that we cannot simply ignore differences. We have to be truthful with each other. Using language that intentionally obscures rather than clarifies is unhelpful in this effort. For instance, those who believe in hierarchical gender relations have taken to calling themselves “complementarian” to soften the appearance of the hierarchical nature of their position. The attempt is to pass off hierarchy as one aspect of complementary roles when it is the central defining feature. Similarly, those who speak of no hierarchy are accused of erasing gender differences and believing there are no complementary differences between the sexes.

Another way of trivializing differences is “significations” like unqualified labeling of someone as “feminist” (sometimes, as Mathews writes, “in the tone and temper of an expletive.) “It trivializes an issue by ignoring the actual content of the argument and removing the other person from inclusion in the conversation.” (500) Our commitment to truth demands that we speak what is true and use language honestly.

Mathews believes that we must commit to three things if we are to make progress toward reconciliation:

First, we all must continue to explore the competing paradigms honestly, using the tools of biblical theology, logic, and courtesy. (501-502) All paradigms have anomalies. Paradigms only change when one paradigm is perceived as unable to resolve significant anomalies and another paradigm can better explain those anomalies. Thus, we must continue to engage each other’s paradigms to find truth.

Second, we are obliged to explain the competing paradigms at many levels. (502) We must resist the temptation to oversimplify. “Proponents of either paradigm must understand both paradigms inside and out and know the anomalies pressing against the sides of each paradigm box.” (503)

Third, while the first two steps are being carried out, we must acknowledge the chasm between paradigms and embrace as fellow believers those on the other side of the chasm. (503) This, of course, is probably the hardest of all when the division is over such deeply personal issues.

Mathews closes her essay with observations about the difference between “bounded-set” and “centered-set.” Bounded set thinking is focused on establishing boundaries that neatly define who is in and who is out. Centered set thinking is focused on what is at the center and maintaining/strengthening the relationship with the center. Mathews argues for taking a centered set approach to be the Church and incorporating a healthy dose of humility into our claims to have the truth.

Author:

Alice P. Mathews receive her M.A. from Michigan State University and Ph.D. from the Iliff School of Theology and the University of Denver. She is the Lois W. Bennett Distinguished Associate Professor of Educational Ministries and Women’s Ministries at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. In addition, she is a regular participant in the daily radio program Discover the Word (RBC Ministries). She is the author of A Woman God Use, A Woman Jesus Can Teach, Preaching That Speaks to Women and Marriage Made in Eden. Alice and her husband, Randall, served in Europe for seventeen years as missionaries with Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society. They have four children and six grandsons.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 28 – Helping the Church Understand Biblical Equality

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part V: Living it Out (Practical Applications)

Chapter 28 – Helping the Church Understand Biblical Equality. Mimi Haddad and Alvera Mickelson.

Haddad and Mickelson write, “Sociological research suggests that it is not enough to present the biblical facts” if there are to be real changes toward biblical equality. (481) The success of innovative change depends on several variables. Drawing on the work of Everett M. Rogers in his book Diffusion of Innovation, they identify six variables that must be addressed.

Eliminate Complexity: The Importance of Understandable language – “Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use. The higher the complexity, the lower the rate of adoption.” (482) “Egalitarians must speak the truths of the Bible in language like that of our Lord Jesus Christ – simple, direct and rich in personal stories.” (482)

Show the Relative Advantage: How Biblical Equality Improves People’s Lives – “The Relative Advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes.” (484) “Egalitarians must show how life improves, in marriages and in the church, when gender barriers are broken. (482)

Increase Compatibility: Connecting to the Core Beliefs of Christians – Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. (487) Egalitarians must connect the message to the core beliefs of Christians. (482)

Improve Observability: Modeling the Message of Gender Equality – “Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others.” (489) Model the message in as many ways as possible. (482)

Offer Trialability: Safe, Simple Ways to Sample Biblical Equality – Trialaiblity is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis… The personal trying-out of an innovation is a way to give meaning to an innovation, to find out how it works under one’s own conditions. This trial is a means to dispel uncertainty about the new idea.” (491) Find simple, safe ways for people to “sample: their freedom in Christ with no gender barriers. (482)

All of these suggestions are good advice. There seems to be another critical factor for anyone working for transformation of this kind: Put your energy into the vision, not into fighting the opposition. The opposition cannot be ignored, and head-to-head confrontation cannot be avoided, but that is not the central focus. The central focus needs to be on living out gift-based ministry.

Authors:

Mimi Haddad received her M.A.T.S. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is a Ph.D. candidate in historical theology at the University of Durham, England. She serves as president of Christians for Biblical Equality <www.cbeinternational.org> and is part of an intentional community in the city of Minneapolis. Mimi also serves on the steering committee and occasionally cochairs the Evangelicals and Gender Study Group at ETS.

Alvera Mickelsen received her M.A. from Wheaton College and M.S. in journalism from Northwestern University. She taught writing for many years at Wheaton and Bethel Colleges. She and her late husband, Berkeley Mickelsen, wrote several articles and books together, including The Family Bible Encyclopedia, Understanding Scripture and The Picture Bible Dictionary. The two of them were among the founders of Christians for Biblical Equality. Alvera also served as editor for Women, Authority and the Bible.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 27 – Nature, Culture and Gender Complementarity

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part V: Living it Out (Practical Applications)

Chapter 27 – Nature, Culture and Gender Complementarity. Cynthia Neal Kimball.

Kimball begins her essay by noting the limitations that cultural assumptions place on women. She writes:

Historically, gender difference has cost women dearly in terms of opportunities for intellectual achievement. During the early nineteenth century, women’s unique reproductive capacities and responsibilities were thought to take precedence over any cognitive pursuits. It was believed that there were vital forces individuals had to allocate between cognitive and biological functions – the “brain-womb” conflict. If a woman diverted some of that vital force toward cognitive functions rather than reproduction, then she could expect to experience deformity and certainly sterility. (466)

As silly as this sounds today, it should also challenge us to examine what false underlying assumptions we may hold.

Kimball suggests that:

Gender differences operate mainly in terms of their effects on social interactions. When observed alone, boys’ and girl’s behavior differs very little. But in larger same-sex social groups, the differences are dramatic. (467)

Some general differences between genders do seem to be cross-cultural. Kimball points out that the awareness of the gender difference and preference for gender segregation occurs at around three years old. Men tend to be more aggressive and competitive and are more concerned with positions in the dominance hierarchy. They tend to be more sexually promiscuous. Women tend to seek out older men who have attained financial resources and social status. As children, boys tend to be more physical in their play, with a great deal of wrestling and mock fighting. They grow up concerned not to show weakness. Girls tend to resort more to relational aggression, like social alienation. Girls are more likely than boys to sustain longer exchanges, take turns with their conversation partner, speak and maintain a theme, and use "extending statements" or "relevant turns." (468) Kendall also mentions that there can be genetic influences at play in this. For instance:

Higher testosterone levels correlate with greater sensation-seeking behaviors, higher irritability and low frustration tolerance in the male adolescent. Girls with lower estrogen and progesterone levels tend to evidence more mood swings and emotional behavior. (469)

Kimball writes that "Although we are not governed by our genes, we are embodied, and our hormones and genes affect our behavior." (470) She reminds us that human beings, male and female, were made for relationship and dominion.

Concerning the fall, Kimball quotes Stewart Van Leeuwen:

In the Fall “the woman abused her dominion by eating of the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ (Gen 2:17). The man, in turn, abused his sociability by accepting some of the fruit from her even though he knew that their unity as man and woman was not to supersede their obedience to God.” The punishments that were pronounced on each one, then became the opposite of the sin each committed. From that point forward, men have struggled with the temptation to dominate as opposed to exercising appropriate dominion. Women’s sociability has tended to degenerate into social enmeshment. These tendencies are borne out in many of the crosscultural nature-and-nurture studies. (470)

Kimball points out that despite the generalized differences between men and women, the nature of given individuals varies considerably within sex groupings. Yet there is common tendency toward sex-role stereotyping where male and female are viewed as opposites. This is more prevalent among men. The male stereotype includes a "competency" cluster of "objectivity, skill in business, and self-confidence." For women, it is "… a 'warmth-expressiveness' cluster that includes tenderness, understanding, and concern for others." (473)

The stereotyping consequences for women create a tyranny of "nice and kind" and trying to be the "perfect girl." Psychological studies show a high correlation between high femininity and "high anxiety, low self-esteem, and low social acceptance." (474) High achieving women often experience the "imposter phenomenon," attributing their success to factors outside their own ability. "Lost voice" is another consequence. Pre-teen girls often show great confidence and competency that evaporates in their early teens as they struggle with the internal conflict between their emotions and the image of the "perfect girl."

The consequences are also constraining and conflicting for men. Physical strength and accomplishment are dominant images "…but intellectual and interpersonal skill competencies are needed for the kinds of achievement society most rewards in men." (475) Men should show greater emotional control yet are often rewarded for becoming angry and violent. Kimball describes the four injunctions of the "Boy Code": the sturdy oak, "give them hell," the big wheel, and "no sissy stuff." (476) Boys and men are shamephoic. They often experience a type of "impostor" phenomenon as well.

Kimball concludes her essay by reminding us that the Church is a socializing environment. Will the Church simply reinforce the stereotypes imported from culture, or will it intentionally resist such stereotyping and help each person authentically become the person God created them to be? Kimball says she dreams of a day "…when the notion of maleness and femaleness can be wrought from the fabric of creation, not from the trappings of our society." She closes with a poem by Nancy Smith:

For every woman tired of acting weak when she knows she is strong,
there is a man weary of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.

For every woman sick of acting dumb,
there is a man burdened with constant expectation of “knowing everything.”

For every woman accused of being an emotional female,
there is man denied the right to weep.

For every woman feeling tied down by children,
there is a man denied the full joy of sharing parenthood.

For every woman who takes a step toward her own liberation,
there is a man who finds the way to freedom made a little easier. (479-480)

Author:

Cynthia Neal Kimball received her Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico. She is associate professor in and chair of the Psychology Department of Wheaton College. Her publications include "Self-in-Relation: An Anabaptist, Feminist Theological and Psychological Model of Agency and Connection" in Religion, Marriage and Family; "Welfare Families" in Welfare in America: Christian Perspectives on a Policy in Crisis; and "Missing Voices: Professional Challenges for Academic Women," with T. Watson, S. S. Caning and J. L. Brady, in Journal of Psychology and Christianity. She and her husband, Douglas, have four children.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 26 – Marriage as a Partnership of Equals

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part V: Living it Out (Practical Applications)

Chapter 26 – Marriage as a Partnership of Equals. Jack O. Balswick and Judith K. Balswick.

The Balswicks begin their essay by mentioning three types of marriage models: male leadership, mutual submission, and equal regard. Within the male leadership (patriarchy) model tends to be hard patriarchy or soft patriarchy. Hard patriarchy is where husbands make the final decisions, and wives willingly submit to the husband’s authority. Soft patriarchy emphasizes the suffering servant model. The mutual submission model is based on Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 5:21 to submit to one another. The equal regard model is in response to feminist ideological concerns that stress independence rather than mutuality and interdependence. The Balswicks opt for mutual submission as the best model. The patriarchy model creates power struggles. When the “in sickness and in health” clause of marriage vows comes into play, the equal regard model tends not to bear up under periods of one-sided stress in the relationship.

The Balswicks point out that the patriarchy model tends to create dominant husbands and manipulative wives. The husband is placed in a position of having to be the authority on all matters and decisions, even when he may not be the most qualified. This tends to lead to defensiveness. Meanwhile, she lacks official status to influence decisions and learns manipulation methods to get what she wants. As the Balwicks observe, “… a husband whose masculine security is based on his wife’s submission places himself in the position of actually being under her control.” (451) By simply disobeying, she can cripple him.

The Balswicks mention five types of power: exploitative, manipulative, competitive, nutritive, and integrative. The last one is the one they say Jesus emphasized, as illustrated in John 10:10, “I came that they may have life, and have it to the full.” It is personal power used for the sake of another.

The Balwicks point out that submission is not about losing yourself in your spouse or doing whatever they want. It is about being truly attentive to your partner and seeking the best for them. They acknowledge this takes considerable work and perseverance through each other’s insecurities, mistakes, and shortcomings. But in the end, it allows for a level of intimacy and honesty that cannot be found in any other marriage arrangement.

From here, our attention is turned to the issues of parenting and housekeeping. The Balswicks are quick to point out that when it comes to parenting, nowhere does it elevate mothering over fathering. Parenting is a team effort. They point out that families with a strong fathering presence tend to raise boys who display empathy, affection, and nurturing behavior, and girls with a greater sense of self, personal boundaries, and a higher propensity to achieve career goals.

Dual-earner families are discussed. There is a need for husbands to be engaged with ongoing household management, but also often a need for many wives to surrender perfectionist household and parenting standards. “Good enough” in household management is often better than perfect regarding relational well-being.

The Balswicks list four principles for relational embeddedness of marital equality:

The Covenant Principle – It is a reciprocal unconditional commitment to one another. It is commitment to stay in relationship and love in times when we feel we are not getting back what we are giving.

The Grace Principle – It is the willingness to forgive and valuing each, even with failures and imperfections. Confronting offenses and becoming reconciled when one is guilty of offense is a must but shaming the other (making them feel they are wrong in their being) is not exercising grace.

The Empowering Principle – “…the ability to envision and encourage a spouse to be everything God created him or her to be.” (460)

The Intimacy Principle – The two becoming one flesh. This does not eradicate individuality but rather creates two strong individuals who can be emotionally connected even during anxious and fearful expressions. Self-disclosure deepens self-knowledge but there must be a safe place for that to happen and this is built on the preceding principles.

All in all, I think they are right on target.

Authors:

Jack O. Balswick received his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. He is professor of sociology and family development at Fuller Theological Seminary. He coteaches with his wife Judith on gender and sexuality and coleads workshops across North America on relationship topics. Publications coauthored by the Balswicks include The Family: A Christian Perspective on the Contemporary Home; Authentic Human Sexuality: An Integrated Christian Approach; Family Pain: Getting Through the Hurts of Family Life; and The Dual-Earner Marriage: The Elaborate Balancing Act. Jack and Judy are members of Pasadena Covenant Church. They have two married children and four grandsons.

Judith K. Balswick received her M.A. from the University of Iowa and Ed.D. from the University of Georgia in counseling and human development. She is associated professor in and chair of the Marriage and Family Therapy Department, School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary. Besides coteaching and coleading workshops with her husband Jack, she directs the Marriage and Family Clinic training at Fuller. She has coauthored with her husband Jack the publications listed above.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 25 – In Search of Holy Joy: Women and Self-Esteem

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part V: Living it Out (Practical Applications)

Chapter 25 – In Search of Holy Joy: Women and Self-Esteem. Joan Burgess Winfrey.

(This essay is the first of five in the Part V of the book, the final section.)

Dr. Winfrey, a psychologist, writes:

It is my strong conviction that the work of ministry and the ministry of work are, for women, vital determinants of self-esteem; yet the internal and external constraints that drive their life choices will likely dilute their access to those sources of fullness and purpose. (431)

Winfrey finds that women frequently believe they are less intelligent, capable, and valuable than men. This negative self-evaluation diminishes the work of half the body of Christ at work in the world.

Winfrey is careful to make a distinction about “self-esteem” disconnected from a Christian view. She writes:

Ellen Charry states that “the autonomous, secular self, a product of enlightenment and popularized post-Freudian psychology, … stands in tension with the Christian view that we come from God, return to God, and are therefore to glorify God in thanksgiving.” The self in self-esteem is a psychospiritual reality, rich with biblical meaning. (433)

Winfrey points to the idea that “esteem” relates to showing respect or recognizing worth. As Winfrey points out, “surely the incarnation is the ultimate act of esteem or regard for toward humans.” (433) Our competence at dealing with life’s challenges over time in service to God, helps reflect that positive esteem back to us.

But Winfrey notes that:

Without some discussion of the image of God in humanity and the implications of the fallen nature of humans, gender studies are a hopeless perplexity. (435)

Winfrey identifies sociability and accountable dominion as two aspects of being in the image of God. She points out that most Evangelicals believe that men and women were created to exercise dominion over creation and are joint heirs of salvation in Christ. She thinks the curses pronounced in Genesis 3:16,

…foretells of a reciprocated desire for intimacy on the part of the woman and a tendency to abuse power in the case of the man. The result for the male (well documented in history) is the propensity to let dominion run wild. The result for the female, whose inclination is toward relationship and affiliation (also well supported in decades of psychological literature), is surrendered responsibility. The particular female sin is to use preservation of relationships as an excuse not to exercise accountable dominion. (436)

Winfrey says that loving and working are the actions corresponding to relationship and dominion. But for women, reflecting this image has been a challenge partly because of the tendency to proscribe the full expression of the image-bearing qualities and partly because of women’s willingness to relinquish their work in the kingdom.

Winfrey then turns to the whole notion of gender roles. The ones held up in the church have much less to do with the Bible and much more with mid-twentieth-century perceptions of femininity. She notes the role of structural-functionalist sociology’s influence in developing “role theology.”

Proponents of role theology in the church have cranked up the deep-freeze dial for women. In a three-part study of role theology, Del Birkey points out that “the Bible does not address femininity and masculinity as independent realities because they are constructed and reconstructed in learned relational behavior in the world’s cultures. ‘Role theology’ rebaptizes secular sociocultural and radical biologically deterministic theories of gender power into a Christian theology. But ‘role theology’ is unequivocally not biblical doctrine.” Birkey emphasizes that spiritual gifts, agape love, servant leadership and mutual submission are the determinants of Christian ministry, not gender, gender roles, authority or hierarchy. (440)

An unhealthy reaction to this unhealthy sanctification of sociological models led gender feminists to deny all differences between male and female except for that which is explicitly biological.

Winfrey notes that biology and culture do not exist independently, and we are still learning much about how false biological determinism creates false division in the sexes. Yet, false cultural determinism denies the particular strengths and needs of men and women. But strident forces on both sides are pressing just these kinds of determinisms.

Winfrey notes that most of the psychology literature indicates, “It is in relationship that core female identity is shaped, and concern for relationship underlies the life patterns and choices of females.” (442) This relational tendency can bring much health to the lives women touch, but Winfrey reports that women in counseling routinely report instances of giving themselves away at the expense of their self-respect. That said, Winfrey is also very suspicious of our tendency to see things in dichotomies instead of shades and continuums. We must resist the tendency to concretize women as one camp and men as another.

Winfrey mentions an experience of hers as a speaker at a conference where a young man asked, “What is it that women want?” Here are six things that she believes are on women’s wish lists. (445-446):

• We want to enter the Promise Land and participate freely in the unfolding drama of redemption.
• We want to love and work as those who inhabit the City of God.
• We want to be honored as anointed vessels in God’s plan of reconciliation for the world, free of internal and external reproach on our bodies and minds.
• We want honest dialogue with the men in our lives about the things we hold sacred.
• We want to listen and to be heard.
• We want to ripen into Christian adulthood and grow up gifted in the name of Jesus.

Author:

Joan Burgess Winfrey received her Ph.D from the University of Denver. She is professor of counseling at Denver Seminary and a licensed clinical psychologist. She has contributed to a number of volumes on the subjects of domestic violence and abortion and is involved in a national research project on victim assistance and communities of faith in partnership with Denver district attorney’s office. She has served for a number of years as a deacon at Meadow Hills Church, a North American Baptist church in the Denver area. Joan is married and has two daughters.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 24 – Feminism and Abortion

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part IV: Addressing the Issues (Hermeneutical and Cultural Perspectives)

Chapter 24 – Feminism and Abortion. Sulia Mason and Karen Mason.

The Masons open their essay noting that "Contrary to the prevailing feminist view, abortion rights are not necessarily linked to women's rights. …Historically, the principles on which feminism was founded are just the opposite of those on which abortion rights are founded." (414)

The Masons explain that historic feminism, dating back to the 19th century, had always opposed abortion. The change came in the 1960s and 1970s as a new feminist movement emerged grounded in different principles than historic feminism.

Historic Analysis

Drawing on the work of John Stuart Mill in the 19th century, the Masons show that the basic tenets upon which early feminism was founded oppose the arguments used to support abortion. They give three examples.

1. "A woman's value is determined by her humanity, not by the value a man places on her." (416) The Masons write:

Prochoice feminists applaud the notions that neither a random selection of chromosomes nor utilitarian value should determine a woman’s true value; yet they acknowledge no inherent value of the unborn, only the utilitarian value the mother chooses to assign. (417)

2. "Differences between men and women are inconsequential to their humanity, which is the basis of their equal rights." (418) Feminists challenged the "might makes right" perspective of many men; the idea that because they were superior in strength and power, they ought to be able to rule over women. Feminists challenged the idea that "a man's house is his castle" and that he has a right to privacy within his home as to how he treats his occupants. The pregnant woman has herself and another human being in her "home." Prochoice advocates argue that the child is a weaker undeveloped human. The mother has a right to privacy in how she deals with occupants of her "home."

3. "A best-case scenario is insufficient to justify a hierarchical system." (420) Feminists argued that "…it was not wise to leave women unprotected in the law simply because some men will refrain from taking advantage of their male privilege." (420) Yet the prochoice argument justifies abortion on demand on the basis of women who need it in the most dire circumstances (the "best case" scenario.)

Logical Analysis

The Masons write about the basis for equality for early feminists:

First, certain differences between the sexes can be acknowledged, because they are irrelevant to each human being’s inherent value. Second, our inherent value as human beings entails a moral responsibility, which is shared equally among all (equally valuable) humans. (422)

The Masons illustrate the self-defeating nature of pro-choice feminist positions by highlighting three examples.

1. "Inherent in the argument for abortion is an implicit admission of male superiority and an existential downgrading of motherhood entailing an inferior position of womanhood." (423) Prochoice feminists base their "equality" on erasing differences between men and women. Abortion downplays pregnancy and motherhood so women can be like men, thus denigrating to womanhood. Capacity to bear children is viewed as an imposed inferiority.

2. "The goal of equality is undermined when it is defined in terms of similarity in weakness rather than similarity in strength." (423) The Masons use the analogy claiming to be a good basketball player because you can miss shots like Michael Jordan. Abortion equalizes men and women in the abdication of sexual responsibility rather than calling on both to elevate themselves to responsible behavior.

3. In removing earlier double standards for male and female sexual behavior, the ethic of 'abortion rights' results in new, equally unacceptable double standards." (424) The Masons write, "Christian morality, the morality of many of the pioneer feminists, sought to eliminate the traditional double standard by recognizing the equal moral responsibility of both men and women." (425) With pro-choice feminism, the irresponsibility of men as fathers of their children has been matched by equal irresponsibility on the part of women not excepting the responsibility for children, except she is the one left to deal with the physical and emotional scars of abortion. While we moralize that fathers should accept responsibility for their children no matter what the father's circumstances, we tell women they "cannot be good mothers except under ideal conditions." (427)

Recommendations

The Masons close their essay by suggesting that biblical egalitarians ought to be able to hold the following non-negotiables:

• The value of all human beings – women and men, born and unborn – is inherent and inalienable.
• Since one's humanity is the basis of one's rights, biological differences between men and women, born and unborn, are incorporated into human rights.
• It is appropriate to seek laws protecting women and the unborn from those who would abuse them, even though some in the oppressive class may not choose to abuse them.
• Pregnancy and motherhood distinguish women from men biologically but not in terms of equality of human rights.
• Equality of the sexes can – and should – hold both sexes to the same high moral standard, not absolve both from moral responsibility.
• The equal moral responsibility of both sexes in a prolife philosophy entails the elimination of all double standards between the sexes.

Authors:

Karen Mason received her M.A. in philosophy of religion from Denver Seminary and was an instructor in writing as the University of Colorado at Boulder. She is a freelance writer and married to Sulia Mason.

Sulia Mason received his M.A. in philosophy of religion from Denver Seminary and has taught philosophy at Aurora Community College. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at the University of South Carolina and is married to Karen Mason

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 23 – Gender Equality and Homosexuality

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part IV: Addressing the Issues (Hermeneutical and Cultural Perspectives)

Chapter 23 – Gender Equality and Homosexuality. William J. Webb.

This essay is really a continuation of the previous essay on the redemptive-movement hermeneutic, focusing specifically on the issue of homosexuality. Webb leads off his essay with the following:

When Christians discuss the issue of gender equality, often someone will ask, ‘Doesn’t acceptance of egalitarianism logically lead to acceptance of homosexuality?’” (401)

As Webb observes in his first footnote, many patriarchalists fear a blurring of gender distinctions and acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle. Webb argues that the hermeneutic does not lead in this direction. He lists six biblical and theological reasons why this is so.

The Core Value of Gender Boundaries

Webb notes that:

There have been recent attempts to reduce the issue to a lack of lifelong covenant relationships (thus making covenant homosexuality acceptable today), but this is not the fundamental problem with homosexuality for the biblical authors. Rather, the biblical concern regarding same-sex sexuality is that Scripture proclaims that in creating humankind in God’s own image, god created them “male and female” (Gen 1:27). In Genesis 2 this is reinforced in terms of God’s having made men and women for each other. God did not make men for men, nor did he make women for women. (402-403)

Webb turns his attention to three biblical passages.

Leviticus 18:22

Webb places this strong prohibition against homosexual acts within the context of the prohibitions preceding it and following it, in the following manner:

Incest ( Lev 18:6-18          heterosexual intercourse
Menstruation (Lev 18:19)           heterosexual intercourse
Adultery (Lev 18:20)          heterosexual intercourse
---------------
sacrifice of children to Molech (Lev 18:21)
---------------
homosexuality (Lev 18:22)          nonheterosexual intercourse
bestiality (Lev 18:23)          nonheterosexual intercourse

The Leviticus 18:22 prohibition is often argued to be irrelevant to present circumstances because of its proximity to the child sacrifice prohibition. This links it to pagan cult worship. It does not apply to committed same-sex relationships. While not untenable, Webb sees a more plausible explanation for the arrangement of the prohibitions. The law deals first with improper heterosexual behavior (18-20), which includes birthing children and sacrifice to Molech. The last two round out the prohibitions by precluding all non-heterosexual behavior. Webb believes this passage is about appropriate sexual boundaries.

Deuteronomy 22:5

This passage is a prohibition against cross-dressing. Webb observes that while gender distinctions in clothing change over time and across cultures, this passage indicates that gender distinctions are to be made. Webb also writes:

Many Old Testament scholars regard this text as a prohibition against not only transvestite activity (dressing and acting like the opposite sex) but also the primary forum in which it is expressed, homosexuality. (406)

Romans 1:18-32 

Webb writes:

Some homosexuality advocates attempt to define unnatural as something against one’s sexual orientation and to reduce Paul’s concerns about homosexuality to strictly idolatry-related or lust-related problems. These attempts, however, have not been convincing and seem to reflect a radical misunderstanding of the discourse of Romans 1:18-32. (406)

He writes that in 1:18-20, pagans know about the creation of what the world is to be like. Verses 21-23 talk of turning away from the Creator to worship creation. In verses 24-27, Paul identifies homosexual acts as the most vivid example of this rejection of God. In verses 28-32, Paul rebukes this rejection of God and then adds a list of other sins that come from rejecting God. This is not about homosexual temple prostitution. Webb also notes that the specific inclusion of lesbian acts shows a broad proscription of same-sex acts.

Webb rejects that these passages deal with a lack of covenant between same-sex partners. “The deepest issue for the biblical authors is a breaking of sexual boundaries that violates obvious components of male-and-female creation design.” (407)

Direction of Redemptive Movement

Webb points out that unlike the slavery and women’s issue discussed in the previous essay, the treatment of homosexual behavior is a trajectory toward greater restriction and prohibition of these sexual acts.

The Vice/Virtue Lists and the Penal Codes

Webb points to using the word arsenokoites in penal codes in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:9-10.

The word literally means “a male who goes to bed [has sexual intercourse] with males” and in all likelihood was derived intentionally by the apostle from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. (408)

He goes on to note a distinction between the issue and the issue of women:

Women serving in leadership roles is simply narrated (Judg 4-5; 2 Kings 22:11-20), and in one case it is forbidden (1 Tim 2:12), but it certainly never receives this sort of death-penalty or vice-list censure. (409)

The Lack of Canonical Variance

While there seems to be variance in the treatment of slaves and women, the is no canonical variance concerning homosexual acts.

Different Purpose Statements

…These subordination texts [slaves and women] are purpose-driven by a passion to make one’s behavior attractive to society. On the other hand, the purpose statements related to the homosexuality prohibitions reveal a concern to make one’s behavior distinct from the broader social setting (Lev 18:3; 1 Cor 6:9-10; see also Lev 18:24-30; 20-22-24).

With the texts pertaining to slaves and women, one may retain the purpose meaning by rethinking the actual behavior in the modern context; with the homosexuality texts, one may retain the purpose meaning only by staying with the same behavior. (410)

The counter-cultural nature of homosexual prohibitions increases the likelihood that they raise transcultural concerns.

Different Pragmatic Clues

Webb identifies three pragmatic issues against homosexual behavior. He elaborates on them in footnote 20:

(1) Sexual-intercourse design: the creative architecture of male and female sexuality with its part-and-counterpart configuration argues against same-sex relationship. Two males or two females can function sexually; they can produce sexual arousal and climax, but not in a way that utilizes the natural, complementary design of body parts.

(2) Reproductive design: the mutually completing contribution of male-and-female chromosomes, the egg and sperm, and so on argues against gay and lesbian relationships.

(3) Nuturing design: the physical design of female breasts, their function of nurturing and comforting infants, and the benefits of breast milk for a strengthened immune system argue for heterosexual relationships (and against homosexual relationships) in which the mother can breastfeed her children. (412)

Webb adds a fourth reason in the text: the benefits children receive from the complementary role modeling of male and female parents.

Concluding Remarks

Webb notes that some of the strongest research and argumentation for heterosexual-only relationships comes from egalitarian leaders. The idea that egalitarianism logically leads to normalizing homosexual behavior is erroneous. The answer to his opening question is no.

This post is a summary of an essay that is, in turn, a summary of the presentation made in his book. Nevertheless, this post hopefully enlarges on the previous post in how he works through the redemptive movement hermeneutic on this controversial topic.

Author:

William J. Webb received his Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is an ordained minister with the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptists in Canada and currently serves as professor of New Testament at Heritage Seminary (Cambridge, Ontario). His writings include Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1l; Slaves Women and Homosexuals; and several articles in journals. Bill, his wife, Marilyn, and their three children live in Waterloo, Ontario.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 22 – A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part IV: Addressing the Issues (Hermeneutical and Cultural Perspectives)

Chapter 22 – A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy. William J. Webb.

Webb opens his essay with this observation:

There are two ways of approaching the Bible: (1) with a redemptive-movement or redemptive-spirit appropriation of Scripture, which encourages movement beyond the original application of the text in the ancient world, or (2) with a more static or stationary appropriation. A static approach understands the words of the text in isolation from their ancient historical-cultural context and with minimal – or no – emphasis on the underlying spirit. This restricts contemporary application to how the words of the text were applied in their original setting. But to do so actually can lead to a misappropriation of the text, precisely because one has failed to apply the redemptive spirit of the text in a later cultural setting. (382)

Webb uses what he calls the X>Y>Z principle, where the letters stand for the following:

X = particular culture context a Scripture passage was written in.
Y = concrete words of Scripture and the ethic they teach in contrast to culture.
Z = ultimate ethic the God intends for eternity.

By examining Y in relation to X, we see the trajectory God has set his people on away from the surrounding culture. By examining Z in relation to the trajectory established by X and Y, we can get a sense of what God ultimately intends. Understanding that trajectory is what shapes our application of Scripture for today. (Webb includes a diagram that illustrates this on page 383, which you can see by clicking here.)

To demonstrate how this works, Webb walks us through an analysis of two issues: Slavery and Women's status. He begins by identifying those passages that fall short of an ultimate ethic:

Slaves (385):

1. Attitude/perspective of ownership/property. (i.e., people owning people)
2. Release of Hebrew slaves versus foreign slaves (i.e., enslavement of foreigners allowed)
3. Using slaves for reproductive purposes.
4. Sexual violation of a slave versus a free woman. (i.e., violation of a slave only resulted in a fine)
5. Physical beating of a slave.
6. Value of a slave's life versus a free person's life.

Women (385-386):

1. Attitude/perspective of ownership/property
2. Less-than-adult, closer-to-a-child status.
3. Inheritance/ownership of property
4. Virginity expectations
5. Adultery and extramarital sex legislation
6. Divorce legislation
7. Other features of biblical patriarchy (i.e., polygamy, inheritance to sons, etc.)

Webb writes that "To speak of this portrait of women as 'sexist' would be anachronistic; indeed, relative to its culture, the biblical treatment of women as a whole was redemptive." (387) The key is not in comparing the treatment of women by the standards of our day but rather comparing the biblical standards to the standards of the day in which they were given. When we look at it this way, we see the following.

Slave Redemptive movement (388-389):

1. Generous number of days off work
2. Elevated status in worship setting
3. Release of Hebrew slaves after six years
4. Provisions given to slaves upon release
5. Limitations on physical beatings; freedom of damaged slaves
6. Admonitions of genuine care.
7. Condemnation of trading stolen slaves/people.
8. Refuge and safety for runaway slaves.

Women Redemptive movement (389-392):

1. Improved rights for female slaves and concubines
2. No bodily punishment of a wife
3. Women gain inheritance rights
4. The right of women to initiate divorce
5. Grounds for divorce favor Judeo-Christian women
6. Fairer treatment of women suspected of adultery
7. Elevation of female sexuality
8. Improved rape laws
9. Softening the husband side of household codes
10. Seed ideas and breakouts (i.e., God unexpectedly blessing women, mutuality statements in NT, etc.)

Some fear Webb denies that Scripture is the definitive Word of God. Webb insists, "…the New Testament is the "final and definitive revelation.'" That is not the issue. He writes:

Rather here is the crux of the matter: How does one relate the New Testament as final revelation with a further realization of it social ethic? Some authors unfortunately merge those two concepts into one affirmation, assuming that the New Testament revelation contains a fully realized ethic in all of its concrete “frozen-in-time” particulars. (393)

The Old Testament showed a redemptive movement compared to the surrounding culture, and the New Testament showed a redemptive movement compared to the Old Testament and Greco-Roman culture. The challenge becomes how to apply God's revelation in our own context and, as Webb points out, "Unless one embraces the redemptive spirit of Scripture, there is no biblically based rationale for championing an abolitionist perspective" or any other perspective that goes beyond New Testament ethical practices. (395)

On page 399, Webb offers a diagram he calls the "ladder of abstraction." At the top of the ladder is the transcultural principle of "Love your neighbor" based on the "character and will of God" and "value of people created in God's image." That leads to ethical imperatives like "Help/feed the poor." Expression of that ethical imperative takes on a "cultural form" as in the Old Testament with "Leave the corners of your fields unharvested" based on the "high percentage of the population involved in farming" and "close proximity between population and farms." As the cultural context changes, we have to move back up the ladder to the ethical imperative and possibly abandon the cultural form of expressing that imperative in favor of a more culturally suitable expression that moves us closer to the ultimate ethic God has revealed.

Webb closes with these three observations:

• We must make an important distinction between the New Testament as final revelation and the ethical realization of its redemptive spirit.
• There are three significant pieces of evidence that support an incremental (not absolute) ethic within the New Testament and thus commend a redemptive-movement hermeneutic within the New Testament. (1) Old Testament precedent within a cursed and culturally defined world should affect our social ethic expectations for the New Testament. (2) The New Testament slavery texts do not provide us with an ultimate social ethic in their concrete particulars, nor can one get to an abolitionist position based on a static "on the page" understanding of the words in these texts. (3) New Testament women tests show us – as seen in four brief examples – how we should permit the Bible's redemptive spirit to carry us beyond certain culture-based components of the New Testament's depiction and treatment of women.
• Christians need to ponder the Bible's underlying spirit and its redemptive movement meaning to make good contemporary applications of the New Testament texts. (400)

I first read Webb's Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis when it was released in 2001. It is one of the most helpful books I have read in years. All my adult life, I had been operating based on something that approaches Webb's redemptive-movement hermeneutic but was hard-pressed to articulate it coherently and concisely. I don't come to every precise conclusion as Webb on each ethical issue, but his articulation of this hermeneutic has been a great contribution to those trying to figure out what it means to be a Christian in the early 21st Century.

Author:

William J. Webb received his Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is an ordained minister with the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptists in Canada and currently serves as professor of New Testament at Heritage Seminary (Cambridge, Ontario). His writings include Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:11; Slaves Women and Homosexuals; and several articles in journals. Bill, his wife, Marilyn, and their three children live in Waterloo, Ontario.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 21 – Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part IV: Addressing the Issues (Hermeneutical and Cultural Perspectives)

Chapter 21 – Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate. Gordon D. Fee.

Gordon Fee observes that the debate over gender and patriarchy is settled among fundamentalist Christians. They take it as a given. There really is no debate for more moderate to liberal Christians, either. Patriarchy is seen as culturally outdated. The debate is among conservative evangelicals. Patriarchalists frequently charge egalitarians with using a "special hermeneutic" to reach their conclusions. It is charged that this "…opens the floodgates to an assortment of evils, such as the rejection of biblical authority and acceptance of homosexual practice." (364) Fee's essay is intended to address the hermeneutical issues that divide the two sides.

Fee begins by reminding us, "By its very nature, human speech – the use of symbols (words) to convey meaning – requires hermeneutics." Spoken language, body language, context, and other issues affect our interpretations. Dialog between two people who know each other well is often quite effective because of many shared assumptions and interpretations. But as Fee observes, the opportunity for misunderstanding increases...

…when, for example, monologue replaces dialogue, or the speaker is unknown to the hearer(s), or writing replaces speaking. When one adds other distancing factors – especially time, culture and a second language – the possibility of misunderstanding is heightened all the more, unless the writer has tried to be particularly sensitive to such distancing factors. But even then the degree of understanding is predicated very much on the degree of common experience. (365)

Fee writes that many evangelicals think the key hermeneutical question is finding the meaning of the text itself. While that is sometimes true, it requires more than this. For example, those advocating the "plain reading" of the Word frequently forbid women from teaching in assemblies yet also prohibit speaking tongues which are clearly affirmed in the "plain reading" of the Bible. They are using some hermeneutics other than plain reading to reach their conclusions.

Fee identifies two types of religious authority:

• External to oneself – This includes a sacred book, an authoritative person(s) (could be a founder), or a community of persons (sometimes this means traditions).
• Internal to oneself – This consists of reason and experience.

Fee writes:

Because ultimately we know the Person, or hear the gospel, through the book, we take the book to be our primary penultimate authority. That is, we believe that this is the way God chose to reveal and to communicate. The other forms of authority (tradition, reason, experience) in various ways authenticate, verify or support, but all must themselves finally by authenticated by Scripture. (367)

Fee identifies the doctrine of divine inspiration as central to evangelical hermeneutics. The authors were not only inspired, but so were their words, and yet "…the Bible is God's Word spoken in human words in history." (368)

Evangelicals reject both fundamentalism that craves an absolutism that denies the human character of the Bible, and ironically end up placing the interpreter over the authority of the Word as they contort it to achieve absolute consistency. It also rejects "…Western rationalism with its pallid moralism and a historical criticism that sits in heavy judgment on the text itself." (369) Yet seeing Scripture as both human and divine creates challenges.

First, there is a tendency to think that because the Word is infallible, there must be some system of understanding the text that will yield an infallible understanding. God did not choose to speak to us through "non-culture-bound theological propositions." Rather, he spoke to us "in historically particular circumstances and in every kind of literary genre."

Second, because the Word was delivered into a historical context, there is some degree of accommodation to that context for the Word to be heard and apprehended.

Third are the temptations of fundamentalist outlook that tries to make the diverse voices of scripture uniform in one voice and of liberalism that becomes paralyzed by amplification of ambiguities.

Fee writes that:

Our task is to discover and hear that Word in terms of God’s original intent as expressed by the biblical writer, and then hear that same Word again in our own historical setting, even when our particulars are quite different from those of the original setting. (371)

Fee writes about two primary tendencies that tend to divide evangelicals:

The two areas of concern are tendencies on the part of some evangelicals (1) to create “theology by way of implication” rather than on the basis of clear and explicit statements in Scripture, and (2) to turn some ad hoc biblical imperatives into a form of Christian law requiring obedience. (373)

Fee contends "…that what is absolutely basic to Christian theology is clearly and explicitly taught by intention in Scripture," and yet this "…does not mean that all Christian theology is explicitly set forth." (373) Fee gives an analysis of the household codes to illustrate his ideas. He points out the peculiar emphasis by partriarchalists on the role of women in leadership when there is no explicit teaching about church structure, order, or worship in the first place. How could these restrictions and regulations have been so central when the very structure in which they are to operate isn't even considered essential?

From his analysis, Fee concludes,

…that a theology that articulates what all Christians in all places and at all times should believe needs to be drawn from texts that teach such a theology explicitly or from texts where the theology is implicitly embedded in what is being said. But in the latter instances, such theology should also reflect the universal perspective of Scripture, without ambiguity and diverse witness. Where there is ambiguity and diversity of witness, it would seem that what is being “taught” is Christian truth that is being accommodated to the culture and its structures. (378)

Fee notes that about the household code in Ephesians, Partiarchalists mistake a description for a prescription. The householder had tremendous power over his household, including his wife. That was assumed, not mandated. The only command given to the householder, who was in a position ripe for abuse, was to love his wife. For the patriarchalist, that which is peripheral and descriptive in the passage becomes the central focus, while the redemptive message passage of other-centered love is all but lost.

When it comes to hermeneutics, Fee concludes that two axioms must be observed:

1. Only what is explicitly taught in Scripture by intention should be understood as obligatory for all believers, and what is merely implied in Scripture should accordingly be held in abeyance. (381)

2. Our hermeneutics of imperatives should be driven by the gospel of grace and Spirit gifting, not by a new form of pharisaic legalism that tries to find ways to put a hedge around a form of Christian law. (381)

Author:

Gordon D. Fee received his M.A. from Seattle Pacific University and Ph.D from the University of Southern California. He is professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Regent College as well as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God. His publications include How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth; How to Read the Bible Book by Book; New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook; God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul; Listening to the Spirit in the Text; and commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians (NICNT) and the Pastoral Epistles (NIBC). He and his wife, Maudline, have four married children and twelve grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 20 – Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic Principles and Questions of Gender

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part IV: Addressing the Issues (Hermeneutical and Cultural Perspectives)

Chapter 20 – Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic Principles and Questions of Gender. Roger Nicole.

This is the first of five essays in Part IV dealing with hermeneutical issues.

Nicole writes that twentieth-century hermeneutics has come to mean something different than its classical meaning.

[twentieth century] exegesis refers to the search for the meaning of a statement in the original setting, while hermeneutics attempts to evaluate its impact at the present time and in the circumstances of the reader or hearer. (355, f. 1)

He describes hermeneutics in its classical sense as "principles that serve to ascertain the meaning of verbal statements." (355) He describes exegesis as "applying hermeneutical principles to particular texts." (355)

Nicole acknowledges "God as the primary author of Scripture" and suggests the search for the author's intent in any biblical passage can't be divorced from divine intent. Yet the understanding of human authors was not exhaustive as Jesus himself identifies meaning in texts that "transcend the intention of the human author."

Nicole identifies six foundational hermeneutical principles.

Literal or Figurative Meanings

Nicole reminds us that the Bible is rich in metaphors and figurative language. Expressions like "eyes of my heart" or "the Lord's arm" are clearly figurative. Understanding what those figures of speech meant in their context is important. One misunderstanding of this type is the figurative use of the word "head" and our tendency to read back our contemporary understanding into the Greek text.

Prescriptive or Descriptive Texts

Nicole writes:

Yet it is imperative to recognize that certain practices in both Testaments are merely described or serve as the cultural background of the activity even of some who were God’s children, without implying that we should conform to these practices. (357)

As an example, concerning the relationships between husbands and wives, Nicole writes:

Although the wife’s submission to her husband in the Greco-Roman household was prescriptive within that cultural context, husbands are never instructed in the Bible to “exercise authority over,” “provide leadership for” or “be responsible for” their wives. …However, the passage does clearly prescribe for the husband Christlike behavior of love and sacrifice toward his wife. (358)

Individual, Collective and Universal References

As an example, Nicole compares Jesus' command to a blind man to wash in the Pool of Siloam (Jn 9:6) and the injunction "You shall not murder." (Ex 20:13) The first is directed to a particular individual in a particular circumstance. The second is a universal prescription. Concerning passages like 1 Timothy 2:9-15, it must be determined if it is addressed to all the women in the congregation or just wives.

Peripheral Versus Central Doctrines

Nicole writes that "Some elements of our faith or duty are more basic to our understanding of our doctrine of life, while others are more peripheral." (359) To illustrate, he writes:

When this principle is applied to gender issues related to church leadership, it is of some interest that many patriarchalists affirm the gifting of women for ministry of various kinds but are resistant to women’s holding positions of leadership in the official structures of the church. On the is matter, on would think that Spirit gifting, which receives considerable attention in the New Testament with regard to the ministry of the body of Christ to itself and in the world (Rom 8:3-8; 1 Cor 12-14; etc.), would be more central than “church order.” This is especially so since there is no prescriptive passage that dictates the structures or nature of church order. Church order was undoubtedly assumed; but the lack of prescriptive instruction about it suggests that it is a more peripheral consideration than ministry itself.” (359-360)

Fragmentary Versus Canonical Interpretations

Here Nicole warns against lifting verses or passages out of their context. Each passage must be understood in light of the passages written before and after it, in light of the book in which it is found, and in light of larger Canonical Interpretations. The whole of Scripture serves to interpret individual passages of Scripture.

The Situation of Those Being Addressed or Represented

Nicole stresses the importance of remembering that what we read in Scripture was not written directly to us. It was written by and to people living in ancient Near Eastern (Old Testament) and Greco-Roman (New Testament) cultures. The letters were in time and space to people in these cultures. Our first effort must be understanding what it meant to the original authors and audiences before applying the Scripture to contemporary circumstances.

Nicole closes out his essay by observing that much of the disagreement in the gender debates occur because sound hermeneutical principles have not been identified and followed. Finding agreement on sound hermeneutics could help bring clarity to the disagreements.

Author:

Roger Nicole received his M.A. from Sorbonne in Paris, B.D., S.T.M. and Th.D. from Gordon Divinity School in Boston, and Ph.D. from Harvard University. After forty-one years of teaching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Semianry, he is now professor of theology emeritus at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. He is the author of numerous articles, including those published in book form in Standing Forth (twenty-three essays) and Our Sovereign Savior (fourteen addresses). Roger is an ordained Baptist minister and lives with his wife, Annette, in Longwood, Florida.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 19 – The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 19 – The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women. Kevin Giles.

Giles opens his essay by noting that:

Contemporary conservative evangelical arguments for the permanent subordination of women frequently tell us that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. (334)

Dr. Wayne Grudem is probably the most notable proponent of this position in the U.S. Giles is from Australia, and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney has been the leading proponent there. The two groups differ on a very crucial point. The Sydney Diocese teaches that the Son is subordinate to the Father in both his being and function. This formulation has emerged at various times in history, only to be rejected as contrary to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The American version teaches that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in some functional capacity but not in being. To Giles' knowledge, this is a completely novel formulation of the Trinity that emerged circa 1980 as the debate about women re-emerged. Both camps claim their positions are historic orthodoxy in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, Calvin, and other theologians like Edwards, Berkhof, Hodge, Dabney, Packer, and Knox.

As Giles points out, there is no question the Son subordinated himself to the Father for the purpose of redeeming the world. Passages can be found throughout Scripture, where Jesus talks about doing the will of his Father. But he also speaks of being one with the Father and telling people that if they have seen him, they have seen the Father. So is there eternal subordination? Giles writes:

I will argue that to teach the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in being or role, person or function, is to teach contrary to the way the best theologians have interpreted the Bible across the centuries and to reject what the creeds and Reformation confessions of faith affirm. (336)

From here, Giles briefly analyzes three noted figures from Church history.

Athanasius (c. 296-373) – Athanasius pioneered a way of understanding the Trinity that has prevailed today. He wrote of "a double account of the savior." There is an eternal aspect and a temporal one. He championed the Father and Son formulation as "one in being" (homoousios). "For Athanasius, ontological equality demanded functional equality. One implied the other." Athanasius was also the one who wrote about the "mutual indwelling or coinherence of the Persons. This later would become the doctrine of perichoresis. Whatever the three do, they do cooperatively and conjointly. Because of perichoresis, the Son can't be subordinate to the Father. Wofhart Pannenberg wrote, "Athanasius vanquished subordinationism."

Augustine (354-430) - In reference to the scriptural passages that seemed to teach Jesus' subordination, Augustine developed a hermeneutical principle "…to interpret them as referring exclusively to the incarnate Son who took 'the form of a servant.'" Augustine stipulated that the metaphorical language of "sending" the Son is not subordination. The sending is about "mission." "The 'begetting' of the Son and the 'procession' of the Spirit are eternal, whereas 'mission' of the Son and the Spirit are temporal." They are distinguished relationally and not by function. Scholar J. N. D. Kelly wrote that Augustine "rigorously excluded subordinationism of every kind. (341-341)

John Calvin (1508-1564) - Giles writes that Calvin understood "the divine three 'subsist,' or as we might say, "exist as," Father, Son and Holy Spirit, being distinguished 'by an incommunicable quality.' What this quality is, he does not say." Calvin allows for distinction, not division. "Calvin never depicts the eternal Father-Son relationship in terms of differing authority. Nineteenth century Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield maintained that Calvin sought the "elimination of the last remnants of subordinationism." (342-344)

After reviewing these men, Giles turns to the historic creeds. In the Nicene Creed are found the statements "true God from true God" and "one being with the Father" who "for us and our salvation came down from heaven." It teaches that the Son was eternally equal with the Father but temporally subordinated himself for the purpose of salvation. One of the most significant statements comes from the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, the most widely received Reformed Confession. Giles writes:

This confession opposes “all those who blaspheme” and heretics who teach that the Son and the Holy Spirit are “created and subservient, or subordinate to another in the Trinity, and that there is something unequal in it, a greater or less … something different with respect to character or will.” (345)

Giles notes that in the modern era, until the past generation, the doctrine of the Trinity has been sorely neglected. Subordinationism emerged in the teaching of Nineteenth Century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878). Hodge wrote that three essential facts sum up the doctrine of the Trintiy: "unity of essence, distinction of persons, and subordination." Dr. Wayne Grudem claims that Hodge endorses his position, but this is false. Grudem teaches that Father and Son were "equal in being, but not equal in function." Hodge makes no such distinction. The Son is simply subordinate, and this is the position of the Sydney Diocese. Giles points out in footnote 58 that it should be noted that this model of subordination in the Trinity was applied to the subordination of women and slaves. B. B. Warfield, who succeeded Hodge at Princeton, dismantled and repudiated Hodge's subordination teaching.

Closing the section on contemporary scholarship, Giles notes several contemporary theologians like David Cunningham, Ted Peters, and Millard Erickson who oppose this subordination formulation. Even Wayne House, who is an ally of Grudem's movement, does not support the formulation.

From here, Giles briefly looks at biblical passages touching on the topic. Philippians Chapter 2 must be one the most significant biblical statements illustrating the Son's equality with the Father and the temporal nature of his submission. He also looks at Grudem's analysis of "head" in 1 Corinthians 11 and shows that Grudem's insistence that "head" means authority carries little weight.

In short, Giles shows historical grounds for the new "equal in being, unequal in function" Trinitarian formula that has emerged in the last thirty years. Giles has written two excellent books on this topic. The most recent book is Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity, released in June of this year. I wrote a lengthy review which you can find by clicking here. His earlier book was The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate. These two books overlap some, but both contain valuable material. You can read a lengthy article by him on the topic called The Doctrine of the Trinity and Subordination.
 

While I know there can be honest disagreement over the interpretation of certain passages and how they apply today, I find the theological distortion of the Trinity fostered here to be one of the most disturbing things in American evangelicalism. I fear the culture wars have blinded some to the historic nature of the faith and are doing grievous harm to sound theology.

Author:

Kevin Giles received his D. B. from Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia, his M.A. from the University of Durham, England, and his Th.D. from the Australian College of Theology. He has served as an Anglican minister for more than thirty years and is currently the vicar of St. Michaels, North Carlton, Diocese of Melbourne. His publications include Women and Their Ministry; Created Woman; The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate; What on Earth is the Church? along with contributions to Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels and Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Kevin and his wife Lynley, a marriage educator and counselor, have four children and four grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 18 (Part 2) – “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role”: Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 18 (Part 2) – "Equal in Being, Unequal in Role": Exploring the Logic of Woman's Subordination. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis.

(Due to both the length and importance of this chapter, I have split the summary into two parts. Today is the second installment.)

Part 2 of Groothuis turns to concerns raised by her critics. Some would say:

…authority is not essential to manhood, nor is subordination essential to womanhood. Rather, women have a subordinate “role” and men have an authoritative “role” (or “office,” the term of choice for some). And women and men are assigned permanently to their “roles” not because of their gender but simply because God, for reasons of his own, has commanded that women “function” in a “role” of subordination to men. (322)

In footnote 56, Groothuis notes that Sarah Sumner, in her book "Men and Women in the Church," calls this view the Scotist view. (278-279) Sumner claims Wayne Grudem and John Piper share this view. As Groothuis notes (and I agree), this just is not the case. Grudem and Piper believe that subordination is deeply grounded in the intrinsic differences between manhood and womanhood. It is not a mysterious unjustified command of God.

Groothuis writes:

…the idea that woman’s subordination is not in any sense determined by or grounded in what a woman is or what God designed her to be is contrary to the ways of God in that it separates God’s will for creation from his design for creation. Ontology and teleology become detached, irrelevant to one another. In what other area of theology would this be asserted? … Surely if God has banned women from leadership in key areas and consigned women to be subordinate to male leadership, this tells us something about the created nature of womanhood and manhood. (323)

We are back to Groothuis' observations about contingent or necessary. Submission to the man's leadership is necessary to her existence as a woman, not contingent on achieving some end.

Groothuis questions the sincerity of this Scotist view noting that it is common in congregational behavior in patriarchal settings not to include women in things like decision-making, spiritual discernment, biblical exegesis, and theological reflection. They are not consulted because they are not seen to be on par with men in such matters. They are inferior, not just subordinate.

Next, Groothuis turns to false analogies she often presented as supporting women's subordination. She writes:

Many of these arguments attempt to justify woman’s subordination (which is incompatible with personal equality)  by likening it to a role that is compatible with personal equality. … Subordination is necessarily personal and not merely functional when (as in female subordination) its scope is comprehensive, its duration is permanent, and the criterion for its determination is one’s unalterable ontology. (325)

The first false analogy she raises is the subordination of children to parents. This is a false analogy because childhood is a temporary situation, and "…the child's parental governance follows justifiably from the child's lack of experience and inferior skills in decision making." (326) The subordination ends when the need for bringing the child to maturity no longer requires the child to function as a subordinate.

The second false analogy she raises is the Levitical priesthood.

Although the Levitical priesthood is roughly analogous to male authority in terms of its lifelong duration and its basis in unalterable physical being, the scope of female subordination to male authority is comprehensive. A married woman is subject to her husband’s authority in every area of her life. (327)

Groothuis points out that while the male is consistently advantaged concerning the female in gender hierarchy, Levites were denied the right to inherit land in a culture where land was a key mark of social status. Furthermore, "The Levites' role, by contrast, was not permanent but provisional, in that it pertained only to a temporary religious system at a particular time and for a particular purpose in history." (327) Everything that was prefigured in the Levitical priesthood has been fulfilled in Christ.

Groothuis also reminds us that the Levites did not have the kind of spiritual authority over others that patriarchalism gives men over women. Prophets, including men and women, were the primary actors through God's will.

The final analogy is the claim of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father as a pattern for the eternal subordination of women to men. The analogy fails both theologically and analogically. (As subordinationism is the topic of the next chapter, we will leave the veracity of the theology question for then.)

Assuming that there is subordination, still, "…God and Christ are of the same substance and nature; they are not just equal in being but one in being." (329) Human unions do not comport with divine nature. The members of the Trinity are always acting out of one will.

Because of these realities, Groothuis notes that if the analogy were accurate, then:

First, the authority of the man and the submission of the woman would not be decided or demanded by their different male and female natures. Second, there would never be an occasion in which the man’s will would or should overrule the woman’s will; the man therefore would “send” the woman to do only what was in accordance with her own will. Third every husband would willingly and consistently share all authority with his wife, acknowledging her full authority to make judgments and decisions on behalf of both of them. (330-331)

Groothuis concludes the essay:

Woman’s inferior “role” cannot be defended by the claim that it is ontologically distinct from woman’s equal being. In female subordination, being determines role and role defines being; thus there can be no real distinction between the two. If the one is inferior, so must the other. If, on the other hand, woman is not less than man in her personal being, then neither can there be any biblical or theological warrant for woman’s permanent, comprehensive and ontologically grounded subordination to man’s authority. (333)

Author:

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis is a freelance writer and editor. Here publications include the award-winning Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism and Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, as well as articles and reviews in Christian Scholar's Review, Christianity Today, ReGeneration Quarterly, Perspectives, Priscilla Papers, Christian Counseling Today, Christian Ethics Today, Eternity and the Denver Post. She maintains a website with online articles <RebeccaMerrillGroothuis.com> and lives in the Denver area with her husband, Doug, who is a professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 18 (Part 1) – “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role”: Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 18 (Part 1) – "Equal in Being, Unequal in Role": Exploring the Logic of Woman's Subordination. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis.

(Due to both the length and importance of this chapter, I have split the summary into two parts. Today is the first installment.)

Groothuis' essay addresses the widely held patriarchal teaching that male and female are equal in being but unequal in role. ("Patriarchal" is her term for people who hold to gender hierarchy.) She points back to Aristotle and his belief that women were inherently inferior to men and, therefore, unworthy to rule or lead. This was the Greco-Roman worldview. (And I would suggest it has more or less been the dominant view until very recently.) This new formulation distances itself from the claims like Aristotle's that women are inherently inferior while still maintaining gender roles prohibiting a woman from ruling or leading. She writes:

In other words, men are to lead because authority is a constitutive element of masculinity, and women are to submit to male leadership because submission is a constitutive element of femininity. A man is fit to lead by virtue of his male nature. A woman, by virtue of her female nature, is not. (303)

Groothuis raises the question of whether it is logically possible for a person to be ontologically equal but permanently subordinate. She aims to show the illogic of this "equal/unequal" formulation.

I believe we can choose between the two biblical interpretations by assessing each one in light of two fundamental premises. The first premise is theological: according to Scripture, women and men are equal spiritually and ontologically – a point that is uncontested in the gender debate. The second premise is logical: the foundational and indisputable law of noncontradiction, which states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time in the same respect. The law of non-contradiction is not a mere human construct that God’s truth somehow transcends. … it is axiomatic that if the Bible contradicts itself, then it cannot be true in all that it affirms. (304)

She writes that:

Either (1) women are created by God for perpetual subordination to men and so are not equal to men in their nature/being/essence, or (2) women are created equal with men and so cannot be permanently, comprehensively and necessarily subordinate to men. (305)

With this in mind, she begins Part One of her analysis. She stipulates the starting point must be  Genesis (1:26-28), where men and women are both said to be in God's image and are called to exercise dominion over the earth. This passage is important to her analysis:

Although there are variations in ability between individuals, the human equality between women (as a class) and men (as a class) assures that women are inherently able to participate equally with men in the various distinctively human activities. Due to both cultural and biological factors, there are some generalizable differences in behavior between women and men, and these difference not only determine different sexual and reproduction functions but may also make certain social roles generally (although not universally) more suitable for one gender than the other. However, these differences do not warrant the traditional notion that women are deficient in rationality and so are suited to be subordinate to men. (307)

She goes on to say:

It should be evident from these observations that egalitarians do not affirm an equality of identity or sameness between men and women. (307)

You may think this is a rather obvious point, but it has been my repeated experience that any challenge to the idea of a hierarchical ordering of the sexes is immediately characterized as an erasure of all sexual differences. Equality in rank status is equated to uniformity in being. Groothuis is aware of this critical distortion.

Groothuis observes that what makes us distinctly human beings in the image of God are the capacities that distinguish us from other creatures, like the higher intellectual functions of rationality, ethical reasoning, and the ability to analyze abstract concepts. If there is equality in being, then women will be able to exercise divine image-bearing activities. Yet the patriarchicalists declare "…that woman is uniquely designed by God not to perform certain distinctively human activities." (308) Patriarchialists frequently assert women have their own uniquely female role, which mostly consists of childbearing and being submissive. Groothuis observes:

But note that these activities are not unique to human beings; rather, childbearing and nursing are shared with females of all mammal species, and submission to the household master is shared (albeit in a different sense!) with a wide array of household pets. (309)

She notes that while men cannot bear children, women can bear authority and responsibility. One is the "can't" of permission denied, and the other is the "can't" of personal inability. Women being denied the opportunity to engage their uniquely human capacities is a denial of their distinctive image-bearing traits.

Groothuis next addresses the issue of spiritual equality. According to some Patriarchalists, a woman's husband is the one who mediates God and the Word to his wife, thus negating the teaching that Christ is the only mediator between God and us.

In the next section, Groothuis examines at length the idea of "role" or "function." There is one sense in which it is possible to "be equal in being but subordinate in function." One example is Deferring to a coworker with more expertise with a particular issue. But the key here is that the subordination is limited in scope and for a fixed duration of time. This is not what the patriarchalist has in mind. Subordination is universal and for life. Put differently, Groothuis distinguishes between necessity and contingency:

Something that is contingent obtains (is the case) only in certain contexts or under certain conditions. It is thus dependent, or contingent, on these contexts or conditions; it is not always and necessarily true. Unlike functional subordination, female subordination is not contingent. (317)

When we talk about "roles," we talk about taking on a set of behaviors to accomplish a particular function, but the role does not define who we are. If our behavior is such that it could not be otherwise, it is not a role but an expression of our being. A woman can have many roles in life, but only one "role" is deemed essential to every woman: Submission to male authority.

… this “role” serves the role of constituting the meaning of femininity, of identifying a woman as a real woman. Female submission to male authority, then, is a “function” only in the sense that it is a necessary function of woman’s true being. (319)

Then Groothuis makes what I think is one of her most important observations. Patriarchicalists fear that the loss of the gender hierarchy is a slippery slope to egalitarianism that logically leads to accepting homosexuality.

Their thinking is that once we say gender is irrelevant for deciding who is to have “primary leadership,” the next “logical” step is to say the gender of one’s marriage partner is also irrelevant. …Patriarchalists believe that gender differences in status and authority are as natural and essential to manhood and womanhood as is heterosexuality. (319)

Because of this (erroneous) logic, tremendous emotional baggage is attached that goes well beyond the presenting issues.

In wrapping up this first part, Groothuis observes:

“Female being” corresponds precisely to “a role of subordination to male authority.” The word role is used in a way that renders its meaning basically synonymous, or redundant, with being. (320) … Thus the theoretical distinction between woman’s being and woman’s subordinate role evaporates under scrutiny. (321)

In the next post, Groothuis addresses how critics object to her case.

Author:

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis is a freelance writer and editor. Here publications include the award-winning Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism and Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality, as well as articles and reviews in Christian Scholar's Review, Christianity Today, ReGeneration Quarterly, Perspectives, Priscilla Papers, Christian Counseling Today, Christian Ethics Today, Eternity and the Denver Post. She maintains a website with online articles <RebeccaMerrillGroothuis.com> and lives in the Denver area with her husband, Doug, who is a professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 17 (1st Edition) – God, Gender and Biblical Metaphor

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 17 (1st Edition) – God, Gender and Biblical Metaphor. Judy L. Brown.

Brown observes:

The true God is Spirit, which is difficult for humans to comprehend. How can such an identity be revealed? How can the infinite divine be conveyed to finite humanity? The Bible presents God largely through use of figurative metaphor. (287)

Brown writes that God is referred to as "he" in the Bible, not because God is male, but because there is no Gender neutral way to refer to him in the biblical languages. "She" would clearly attribute sexuality to God. "It" would not work because it is not a personal pronoun. "They" is unhelpful because despite being the Trinitarian God, "they" implies a plurality of Gods. "He" can mean either male or it can mean humankind. Thus, "he" is the only pronoun that works. Our language must not assign creaturely qualities to God or misrepresent God's character.

The predominant imagery of God is masculine. Father is the primary image but "God is like a father relationally, not sexually." (290) God is no more male than God is an eagle to which God is also compared. Brown points out that the biblical world was a patriarchal one. "Father" connoted the person who is the authority figure and the primary protector and provider. Thus, the male metaphor was the most fitting.

But Scripture also offers considerable feminine imagery of God as well:

As an eagle stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young; as it spreads its wings, takes them up, and bears them aloft on its pinions, … (Deut 32:11)

You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. (Deut. 32:18)

For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will gasp and pant. (Isa 42:14)

I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs, and will tear open the covering of their heart; … (Hos 13:8)

Brown notes that "wisdom" in wisdom literature always gives a feminine identity. We see more feminine imagery in the New Testament. Jesus describes his mission in terms of a woman with a lost coin. (Luke 15:3-32). Jesus also declared:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matt 23:37)

James wrote:

In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

Brown points to two potential dangers in our characterization of God. One is the feminist extreme of calling God by female pronouns and names. God is sexless, and to use female names implies sexuality that is not present in God. Even names like "Father-Mother God" risk letting us think that maleness and femaleness are incorporated into God rather than transcended by God. Traditional language is needed as a safeguard against these errors.

The second danger is the danger of extreme traditionalism. "Just as it is wrong for feminists to impose female gender on God, so it is wrong for traditionalists to impose male gender on God." (294) Brown writes:

Being a representative is quite different from being a representation. Ambassadors speak for whoever sends them and act on behalf of the one who commissions them, but they do not have to imitate or impersonate that individual. Indeed, female ambassadors have represented men, and male ambassadors have represented women. Representing a person involves the wishes of a person, not embodying that individual’s personal characteristics (such as gender). (294)

This brings us to the theological significance of Jesus' maleness. Brown writes:

Jesus’ primary title for himself, “Son of Man,” as well as most other New Testament references to Jesus’ being a “man,” use the Greek word for “human being” (anthropos) rather than the Greek word for “male” (aner or arsen). …

In order to be a representative human being (albeit without sin), Jesus had to be either male or female. The choice could not have been based on God’s gender, for God is neither male nor female. Nor could the choice have been based on God’s preference, for God does not favor men over women. What, then, determined Jesus’ gender? The culture into which Jesus was born is the most likely possibility. (295)

Brown points out that while it was theologically possible for Jesus to be born female, there were cultural advantages to Jesus' mission in being born male. The culture did not attribute authority to women, and their testimony was not legally credible. Furthermore, Brown writes:

Perhaps, for example, the “male dominance, female subordination” consequence of the Fall had to be overturned by the dominant gender rather than by the subordinate gender. Perhaps the first human, who was male, had to be “matched” by a savior who was male. (296)

At the end of her essay, Brown turns to questions about being created in the image of God, noting that God declares in the Genesis 1 account that male and female are both fully in the image of God. The idea that Adam was created in God's image and Eve in Adam's image is erroneous. The error is made reflecting on Eve's creation from Adam's rib. Eve was created from Adam's rib. Being made from Adam's rib no more meant she was made in the image of Adam than that Adam was created in the image of the soil by being taken from the dust of the ground.

As Brown points out, it is hard to miss the connection between "God [singular] said let us [plural] make mankind in our [plural] image" and the idea that man and woman become one flesh. (297) Brown does not go on to make the significant point that out of the human union would flow more image bearers, just as the first image bearers flowed out of the community that existed in the Trinity. Male and female in community in general, and in marriage more specifically, appear to mirror the nature of the Trinity in community.

This is not to say that unmarried persons are somehow less human. They are part of the human community as well and are part of communities that have male-female associations. As Brown observes, "Gender is probably the single most defining characteristic of someone's personhood." (297) The complimentary community of the non-hierarchical Trinity should be at the center of the doctrine of "man."

Brown goes on to observe:

In light of these considerations, it becomes quite clear that homosexuality is a blatant denial of the very means through which and individual is rightly to reflect God’s image. Likewise, the male chauvinism that has been a blight on society since antiquity and the radical feminism that answers back with equal venom are both diametrically opposed to the will of God. Each so disrespects the other sex as to negate any possibility of men and women’s reflecting the harmony that exists within the Godhead. (298)

She closes, making two points.

“First, whatever image of God was given to Adam was given in equal measure to Eve. … Second, whatever the connection between the image of God and male-female relationships, human sexuality is presented by the creation account as both positive and fundamental to what it means to be human. (300)

According to creation, then, if men are called by God to serve as spiritual leaders, women should be expected to be called as well. The church should expect the calling of women, not reject it. (300)

Author:

Judy L. Brown received her M.A. from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Ed.D from Nova Southeastern University. She is ordained with the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel and is currently serving as ministries coordinator of the Great Lake Districts as well as pastor of the Foursquare Church in Ferndale, Michigan. She has authored Women Ministers According to Scripture, Structuring Sermons Step by Step and the Old Testament study notes for the revised Spirit-Filled Life Bible.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 16 – Biblical Priesthood and Women in Ministry

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 16 – Biblical Priesthood and Women in Ministry. Stanley J. Grenz.

Grenz writes near the beginning of his essay:

Advocates of male leadership are united in the conviction that some restrictions are to be placed on the service of women in the church. Nevertheless, they do not speak with one voice as to what specific offices are off limits. … those arguing for male leadership build their theological case for limiting the role of women from the fundamental belief they all share that God has placed within creation itself an ordering of the sexes that delegates to men the prerogative of leading, initiating and taking responsibility for the well-being of women, and entrusts to women the role of following male leadership, as well as supporting, enabling and helping men. (272)

Grenz notes a strong tendency to model the pastor's role on the priest's role in the Levitical priesthood. Certainly, this view is understandable among Christians in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican communions, but Grenz raises the peculiarity that hierarchical Protestants would implicitly, and often explicitly, rest claims on the same rationales.

Offering examples of such thinking by hierarchialists, Grenz quotes Bernard Seton, "The days of the Levitical priesthood have passed; the apostolic age was about to dawn. But in each age, men filled the priestly roles." and  Thomas Schreiner, "There is a suggestive pattern in that women functioned as prophets in both the OT and the NT, but they do not serve as priests in the OT nor as elders in the NT."

Grenz draws our attention to Hebrews, where Jesus is described as our high priest. Because of him, we (men and women) may enter the Holy of Hollies and draw near to God. (see Heb 10:19-22) Peter tells us that all believers have become a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:5, 9). John the Revelator opens his letter:

To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. (Rev 1:5b-6; also see Rev 5:10, 20:6)

Jesus warns against elevating ourselves as teachers and masters over other people.

But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students. And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father -- the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. (Matt 23:8-11; also see Mark 10:42)

Furthermore, we learn in 1 Timothy 2:5 that:

For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human,…”

No human priest mediates Christ to others as occupant of an office, and no husbands act as mediators for their wives.

Another aspect that Grenz doesn't raise is passages like Ephesians 4:11, "The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors, and teachers, …" Notice that among these gifts (not offices) "priest" is not listed. It isn't listed anywhere as part of the New Testament church. All this even though many early churches began among Jews in synagogues, and we would expect them to transfer over such a concept unless there was a theological reason for not doing so. That reason is that the Church is "… a fellowship of believer priests." (275)

Grenz remarks,

Simply stated, ordained ministers are persons chosen by God and acknowledged by the church, who have been charged with the responsibility of leading the people as a whole in fulfilling the mandate Christ has given to the entire church. (277)

Within the sacramentalist traditions (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican), the priest represents the people to God and God to the people. The Orthodox tradition, with its belief in iconography, believes that using an improper icon (female priest) would be equivalent to worshiping a different God. Protestants have, in theory, rejected this perspective, yet many still have the idea of the Eucharist as of the Last Supper, with the officiating pastor playing the part of Jesus. Concerning this distortion of the Protestant view, Grenz quotes Madeleine Boucher:

We affirm – and affirm properly – that Christ redeems us as a man, as a Jew, as a poor person, and so on. The difficulty arises when it is implied that Christ redeems us by virtue of the fact that he is man, as though his maleness were a necessary condition for God’s saving work in them. (282)

That said, Grenz makes this observation about Jesus' maleness:

Because Jesus was a particular historical person, his maleness was integral to the completion of his task. More particularly, being male facilitated Jesus in revealing the radical difference between God’s ideal and the social structures of his day. Only a male could have offered an authoritative critique of those power structures. Coming to this earth as a man, Jesus liberated both men and women from their bondage to the social orders that violate God’s intention for human life-in-community. (282)

In the final section of his essay, Grenz includes this statement by Marianne Meye Thompson.

Both those who favor women in ministry and those who oppose women in ministry can find suitable proof texts and suitable rationalizations to explain those texts. But if our discussion is ever to move beyond proof texting, we must integrate these texts into a theology of ministry. I suggest that the starting point for such a theology of ministry lies in the God who gives gifts for ministry and in the God who is not respecter of persons. (283)

Grenz suggests there are two issues regarding women serving as pastors. First, we must determine the relationship of the gifts to pastoral ministry. Grenz argues that most Christians agree that people who engage in activities like preaching, teaching, and leading have received the charismata from God. A pastor is someone the community recognizes and exhibits the gifts associated with a pastor. It is based on the gifts given by the Spirit for "works of service" (Eph 4:12) in leading the people of God. Spiritual gifts are foundational.

Second, Grenz argues that the Spirit endows the gifts essential to pastoring to men and women, and he claims that few dispute this. So why should women not be pastors? Those that believe the position should be restricted to women maintain charismata is not the only determining factor. Instructions concerning those who can hold ecclesiastical authority also have to be considered. Grenz notes that this drives a wedge between charismata and the ordained office. "…An artificial dichotomy between the Spirit's gifting and the exercise of the ordained office" is created." (286) It subsumes ecclesiology under anthropology.

Christ established the church not merely to be a mirror of original creation but to be the eschatological new community, living in accordance with the principles of God’s new creation and there by reflecting the mutuality that lives at the heart of the triune God. (286)

The corruption of the idea of the priesthood of believers and the creeping clericalism connected with it have, in my estimation, been some of the most debilitating developments in the life of the Church. The hierarchicalist are hardly responsible for these developments, but they seem to have codified this into their institutional structures. Therefore, the consequences extend beyond its impact on women to individual believers' understanding of their ministry in the world.

Author:

Stanley J. Grenz received his M.Div. from Denver Seminary and D.Theol. from University of Munich, Germany. He is Pioneer McDonald Professor of Theology at Carey Theological College, Vancouver, B.C. He is also an ordained minister with the Baptist Union of Western Canada. His publications include The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Image Dei; Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-theological Era; Theology for the Community of God; What Christians Really Believe…and Why; The Moral Quest: Foundations for Christian Ethics; A Primer on Postmodernism, and coauthored with Denise Muir Kjesbo Women and the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry. Stan and his wife, Edna is minister of worship at First Baptist Church, Vancouver, have two children.

(Note: Stanley Grenz died unexpectedly in the spring of 2005, shortly after the publication of this book.)

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 15 - The Nature of Authority in the New Testament

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 15 – The Nature of Authority in the New Testament. Walter L. Liefield.

Dr. Liefield begins his essay by distinguishing between leadership, authority, and power.

We may distinguish authority from leadership on the one hand and from raw power on the other. Leadership is used here as a general term to describe personal influence that generates a positive response among followers. It is earned, it may be invited, and it is voluntarily accepted. Authority, in the sense under consideration, is a narrower term used to describe the right to command others and to enforce obedience. It is usually conferred, through appointment or election, on someone having a position in an organizational setting. Power is usually thought of as influence and authority that are seized rather than earned or voluntarily conferred. Often what begins as welcomed leadership or acknowledged authority is later transformed by an ambitious person into power or tyranny. (255-256)

From here, Liefield launches into a wide-ranging survey of Scripture, examining authority from various angles. Using his outline, I will offer some brief statements on his conclusions.

Instances of Authority in the New Testament

The authority of Jesus – Jesus said that "' all authority in heaven and on earth, had been given to him." At issue for us is what dimension of his unique authority, if any, was passed on to his followers." (257)

The authority of the Twelve – The only mention of exousia (authority) in relation to the disciples refers to authority over demons. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom, and an implied authority to "bind" and "loose" is given, but neither mention of this story is linked to teaching or preaching. There is a wide variety of interpretations as to what the keys mean. Bottom line, Liefield concludes authority over the evil powers was the only authority given to the twelve.

Paul's Apostolic Authority – "First, he exercised authority over his coworkers … and churches he himself founded. Second, he primarily uses exousia ("authority") language in a struggle with the Corinthians over "rights" (1 Cor 8:9; 9:1-18). Third, with the exception of urgent and emotional cases, he was usually gentle in his authority, "urging" rather than commanding Timothy and Titus … and not issuing a "command" to the Corinthians (2 cor 8:8)." (258)

The Question of Authority and "Church Government" – Liefield writes, "While there is clear evidence for the fact of early church governance, there is no express teaching on the subject in the New Testament." (258) From here, Liefield moves into an examination of verses like Hebrews 13:17, "Obey your leaders and submit to them." The key word is peitho, "obey," and Liefield suggests it is quite fluid in meaning. The TNIV reads, "Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority." This verse challenges the idea that there was no authority, but the wording is "…clearly temperate in comparison to stronger terms in the same semantic domain. (259)

A second word he examines is proistemi which he says can mean "'to show concern/ care for / devote oneself to' and 'to be at the head of' (thus to exercise leadership.)" (259-260) It appears eight times in Paul's writings, and in four cases, it tends to convey the idea of a leader giving devoted care. Four other cases are found in the Pastoral epistles.

Authority in the Pastoral Epistles – "Proistemi" appears three times in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, 12 and relates to an elder's or deacon's relationship to this family. The key verse is I Timothy 5:17

“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; …” (NRSV)

In place of "rule," some translations use "guide" or "direct the affairs of the church." Liefield believes the alternate translations are more in keeping with the word's connotation elsewhere. "As with 1 Thessalonians 5:12, this description shows evidence of a plurality of leadership, a group who are to be respected, esteemed, loved, and honored (probably with financial support.) (261)

Liefield notes that in most places, leadership is described more in terms of guidance and caring and less in terms of authority. He notes there are exceptions like 1 Timothy 1:3, where Timothy is commanded to halt teaching of false doctrines, but it is clear it is not as an elder or pastor but instead Paul's apostolic representative with Paul's full authority.

Specifically Gender-Related Passages – Liefield draws our attention to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 dealing with the sexual relationship between husband and wife. Neither the husband nor the wife has authority over their own body. "Thus in the most intimate aspect of marriage the authority of husband and wife is equal." (262) Liefield mentions the confusing 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 passage about a woman having "authority (control) over her head" but Liefield says that the head covering "…is not a 'sign' the woman is under authority." (262) He also mentions 1 Timothy 2:12 but notes that exousia is not used here. The word is authenteo, and as we have already visited this issue in an earlier chapter, I will not revisit it here.

Order and Structure in the New Testament Churches

Discussion about authority in today’s church can easily move in the wrong direction. It often starts with one’s own church structure and with assumptions that are more characteristic of our times than of the first century. It then moves back to the New Testament, seeking to fit its teachings into our contemporary structures. (263)

With this caution, Liefield then turns to another aspect of Church order and structure.

Organization, ministry, and leadership – New Testament “Church organization probably differed somewhat from place to place, but as noted above, churches founded by Paul, at least, had plural leadership by elders. The early church had no equivalent to the Old Testament priesthood, nor is there evidence in the New Testament that one person with special authorization ‘presided' at the Lord’s Supper.’” (263-264) “Apostles unquestionably were acknowledged as the leading figures in the church; but no provision is made in the New Testament for their “succession.” People designated as ‘pastors’ functioned within congregations, not above them.” (264) “With the exception of the Pastoral Epistles, addressed to Paul’s apostolic delegates, Paul’s letters are addressed to the churches themselves. None is addressed to a single leader, nor is one person ever spoken to as being 'in charge' of the church." (264)

The Role of Teachers – Liefield references the idea of “teaching authority” as an activity women are frequently restricted from engaging in. “…there is no verbal connection in the New Testament between the word teacher and the vocabulary of authority. Hence the very term teaching authority, as though authority were vested in the teacher rather than in what is taught, it is an anachronism when we are discussing teaching/teachers in the New Testament.” (265)

Liefield also observes that “What is often overlooked in these discussion is that women traditionally were not welcomed as teachers in either Greek or Jewish society….If missionaries, like Paul, were to be all things to all people to win them to Christ (1 Cor 9:22), public proclamation of Christian teachings would ideally be done by men.” (265)

The Role of Elders – “First, there is no evidence of an individual elder who acted with autonomous authority. Eldership was plural, whether in a church or in a town. ... Second, elders were shepherds, not a board of directors. … On the other hand, nowhere does Paul say that individuals or groups possessing an ongoing authority made the decisions. (266)

Ordination – “It is increasingly recognized that while ordination is significant, it is not found in its usual modern sense in the New Testament or in early Christianity. The practice as we know it developed toward the third Christian century. … Whatever else, the laying on of hands was not an appointment to an “office” but corporate recognition of a ministry already in progress, which is the point of 1 Timothy 5:22. … The fact that the New Testament church did not practice ordination as commonly understood today is significant because spiritual authority has long been connected with ordination.

The Use of Titles and the Term “office.” Here Liefield quotes Jesus in Matthew 23:8-12:

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

…. office is not a New Testament church term. The concept of “office can be traced to the English word in the KJV, which gave the impression that it is in the Greek text; but in none of the passages in which the KJV has the word office (except concerning the Jewish priesthood) does any word meaning “office” occur in the Greek. (268)

Contemporary Expressions of Authority

De jure, de facto, and de senso Authority

“If decisions regarding authority in the contemporary church are to be considered biblically legitimate (=de jure) for the church, they must derive from biblical principles and precedents such as those discussed above. Yet it would be unrealistic to ignore the fact that often individuals have an actual (de facto) rule over others in a setting where Scripture does not grant the de jure authority. An aura of de facto authority, for example, sometimes marks the founders of the congregation with de facto authority. … the prominence of today’s senior pastor and preacher has tended to increase the perceived (or what we might call de senso) authority of the person in the pulpit over those in the congregation.” (269)

Further Practical Issues

If authority is in the church itself as a “committee of the whole,” do women have a vote? [Therefore in authority.] …Another issue is whether the preaching of a sermon is an authoritative act, because that logically carries the implication that the congregation must obey the imperatives in the sermon, not just those in the Scripture being quoted. Further, churches may differ as to whether baptism and “presiding” at the Lord’s Supper are acts of authority that should be restricted to ordained clergy. This is de jure in some denominations but undocumented and therefore de facto in some churches. (270)

Concluding Observations: Four Distortions

Formalization – Over emphasizing the authority of people fulfilling a function and creating “offices.” Elevating some in “authority” (through ordination) over others.

Normalization – Attributing New Testament apostolic authority to pastors.

Generalization – Taking a specific case like 1 Timothy 2:12 and authenteo and then applying to women in all places and times.

Minimalization – The tendency to minimize the ministry of women both in the New Testament and today.

Liefield closes, reminding us that all church authority is under Christ, Scripture, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Leadership is a matter of servanthood, and “The purpose of authority is to glorify the Lord and to facilitate his mission in the world.” (271)

Author:

Walter L. Liefield received his Ph.D from Columbia University and Union Theological Seminary. He is distinguished professor emeritus of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has held several pastorates, most recently serving as senior pastor of Christ Church in Lake Forest, Illinois. Among his several books are New Testament Exposition, Interpreting the Book of Acts and (cowritten with Ruth Tucker) Daughters of the Church. He and his wife, Olive, have three grown children and seven grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 14 – The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part III: Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 14 – The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry. Gordon D. Fee.

Dr. Fee writes:

What is at stake is not whether all people are equally gifted; they are not. What is at stake is whether God the Holy Spirit, in his gifting the people of God, ever makes gender a prior requirement for certain kinds of gifting. I will argue that on this point what biblical data we do have seems clear: the Spirit does not. (241)

So what I hope to do in this chapter is threefold: (1) to point out the ambiguity of the biblical texts with regard to church structures and ministries, and thus (2) to define a hermeneutical starting point from which our quest might legitimately be carried forward, and (3) to look at a variety of texts that state or imply that Spirit gifting precedes all questions of structures and gender. (241)

The Bible's Ambiguity Regarding Church Structure and Ministries

Fee begins this section by writing:

One thing that should perhaps strike the serious reader of Scripture is the general lack of concern in the New Testament about the way the church ordered its corporate life, whether in structures (“offices,” etc.) or its gatherings for worship. (242)

Fee points out that while we find very explicit, intentional instructions for how Israel should function and how the people should worship, such instruction is completely absent from the New Testament. The nearest thing we have is 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9, but these are just qualifications for leaders. It doesn't give a job description. The concept of "office," in terms of a formal position that someone needs to fill, can only be crafted out of 1 Timothy 3:1, which is a stretch. Some things we take as titles, like "prophet," were likely not office titles but mere descriptions of someone who prophesies. Fee notes that "…what is totally lacking in our documents is any instruction intentionally stipulating who, what, how many and the duties of these various people." (243)

Fee writes that it appears some New Testament churches functioned like synagogues with elders giving leadership. Yet, some leaders were episkopoi, a term from the Greco-Roman world meaning "overseers." Fee mentions that we know that some churches were household churches. Another study I have done suggests some churches (Thessalonica?) may have been organized as burial societies, which would have been a more convenient strategy for poorer congregations. The bottom line is that we don't have a blueprint for Church structure and life.

A Hermeneutical Starting Point

As a hermeneutical starting point, Fee suggests that we recognize that we make three kinds of doctrinal statements in the Church.

1. Christian theology (what Christians believe)
2. Christian ethics (how Christians ought to live in relation to others)
3. Christian praxis (what Christians do as "religious" people) (246)

He says that:

Moreover, within these three kinds of statements there are some that are primary and nonnegotiable (e.g. the diety of Christ), while others are secondary (e.g. the two natures and how they cohere.) … most of the differences between Christians lie in two places: (1) with the secondary-level statements in the first two categories (theology and ethics) and (2) with both levels of statements in the third category (praxis). (246)

Fee points out, Christians all practice communion, but there is wide variance about how to observe it properly. Still, all the justifications "… are predicated on different readings of texts that give no explicit instruction; everything is implied." (246)

…our hermeneutical difficulties are exacerbated by the fact that our only experience of church, even for those who have broad intercommunion experience, is of a later development of church that looks almost nothing like the house church of the first-century Greco-Roman world. (247-248)

Consequently, there is no one-to-one correspondence between what the New Testament calls some function like "pastor" and what we call "pastor" today. Fee concludes:

…since the New Testament does not teach explicitly that only men may lead or serve in certain ways, and in fact seems to leave the door open on this matter (in the case of women as householders), the issue should more likely be giftedness, not gender. Indeed, I for one have as much resistance to the notion that women ought to be in leadership along with men as to the notion that only males are gifted to lead. (248-249)

Verbal Ministries in the New Testament

In this section, Fee asks:

(1) What does “ministry” mean? Can one make a legitimate distinction between ministry as “office” in the church and ministry as serving the church in other capacities? (2) What is the evidence that women were involved in ministry that included teaching, especially instructing others in scripture. (249)

Fee builds a case that when Paul talks about praying and prophesying in such an offhanded way in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, he uses these terms as euphemisms for all verbal ministry in worship. Paul doesn't make neat, clean boundaries between various types of utterances. Fee also raises 1 Cor 14:31, "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged." He points out that "all" refers to all worshipers (men and women). He notes that,

These latter two verbs are most often associated, first, with receiving instruction through teaching and, second, with proclamation – which suggest that Paul did not have neat categories for these various verbal expressions prompted by the Spirit.” (250)

Furthermore, Fee concludes that prophecy in passages like 1 Cor 14 refers to people who occasionally prophesy not to an office of prophet.

Here is Fee's summary of the biblical data:

First, one finds a general lack of precision in Paul when it comes to describing verbal ministries within the community of faith. (251)

Second, in no instance in Paul’s letters does he mention leader(s) who are to be in charge of what takes place; for him the Spirit is the obvious leader of the community in its worship.

Third, there is no distinction of any kind between men and women when it comes to the actual verbal activities involved; indeed, a straightforward reading of all the texts together seems to imply that “all” means both men and women. (251)

Fee points out that an important implication of this analysis is that the New Testament just isn't concerned about the specific structures and offices. He notes that Paul never addresses church leaders either to exhort them to take charge or praise them for work well done. He never speaks to leaders as though they are the ones to carry out his directives. "He does at times tell the community to "recognize" its leaders, but the language is in the form of verbs describing their activities rather than nouns that indicate their "offices" (see I Thess 5:12-13). (253)

Fee closes, noting that such a view of ministry based on gifts makes ministry less authority driven. It eliminates the problem common in seminaries of many students assuming they meet the first requirement for ministry: being male. It also allows everyone to participate in all facets of ministry, whether male or female.

Thus, my issue in the end is not a feminist agenda – an advocacy of women in ministry. Rather, it is a Spirit agenda, a plea for the releasing of the Spirit from our strictures and structures so that the church might minister to itself and to the world more effectively. (254)

Author:

Gordon D. Fee received his M.A. from Seattle Pacific University and Ph.D from the University of Southern California. He is professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Regent College as well as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God. His publications include How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth; How to Read the Bible Book by Book; New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook; God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul; Listening to the Spirit in the Text; and commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians (NICNT) and the Pastoral Epistles (NIBC). He and his wife, Maudline, have four married children and twelve grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 13 – A Silent Witness in Marriage: 1 Peter 3:1-7

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 13 – A Silent Witness in Marriage: 1 Peter 3:1-7. By Peter H. Davids.

1 Peter 3:1-7

1 Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; 4 rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight. 5 It was in this way long ago that the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves by accepting the authority of their husbands. 6 Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. You have become her daughters as long as you do what is good and never let fears alarm you.

7 Husbands, in the same way, show consideration for your wives in your life together, paying honor to the woman as the weaker sex, since they too are also heirs of the gracious gift of life -- so that nothing may hinder your prayers. NRSV

Davids notes at the beginning of his essay, "Craig S. Keener sees here a strategy for life within the Greco-Roman world, aimed at the witness and reducing grounds for the charge that Christianity was subversive." (224-225) This is a good one-sentence summary of Davids's position in the article.

I especially liked this paragraph as Davids begins his survey of the text:

Language is an expression of a given culture existing in space and time. It takes its meaning from the definitions that culture gives to certain sounds and their associated graphic symbols. It is a truism that any given word, or its associated sound, in one culture may have a different meaning from the same word or sound in another. Furthermore, words in all languages change their meanings over time. In 1 Peter we have language (Greek) from a particular part of the first-century Mediterranean world. In interpreting it we are trying to understand what it meant as an expression of a given historical culture or social world. With this in mind, it is important that we see how the wives addressed in 1 Peter might have heard this instruction within their own social context. (225)

Davids draws two conclusions as he looks at the text.

“First, it is clear the 1 Peter is addressed to a largely Gentile Christian audience. …Their earlier state was 'ignorance,’ and they had ‘futile ways inherited from [their] ancestors.’ They were once ‘not a people’ and had ‘already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles do.’” (225)

“Second, while it is clear that the wives in 1 Peter 3:1-6 are Christians, this is not evident regarding their husbands, who appear to be a separate group from the believing husbands addressed in 1 Peter 3:7. … the focus of the passage (1 Peter 3:1-6)  is on women living with non-Christian husbands in the area of the Greco-Roman world to which the letter is addressed. And even if women with Christian husbands were also intended, their behavior would likewise be conditioned by the evangelistic motive of the text.” (225)

This passage is Peter's version of a household code, discussed in earlier chapters. Davids draws our attention to the reason for wifely submission in verses one and two. Davids points out that it was taken for granted that a husband would rule. He notes, "The unusual part of our passage is the assumption that there is a reason for this behavior that goes beyond its fitting "women's nature." (227) In other words, why would Paul deem it necessary to explain the need behavior that was already assumed appropriate for the readers?

Davids pulls us back a little earlier in the book to Chapter 2, where Peter introduces the household tables.

11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul. 12 Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge. 13 For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. 16 As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. 17 Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (NRSV)

It is clear here that Peter considers believers to be free people. They are aliens in another land who can use their freedom to win over others to Christ. From here, he goes on to address two specific situations. First, he deals with slaves and their relationships with their masters, instructing them to behave in such a way as to win their masters over. Unlike Ephesians or Colossians, there is no reciprocal instruction to masters. The second issue is the issue of a wife married to an unbelieving husband. She was already subverting her husband's authority by not worshiping his gods, so she needed to conduct her life in a way that should bring respect and honor. Again, the motive is how to behave in a way that wins him over. Surrendering freedom for the sake of Christian witness.

Davids also goes on at some length into the peculiar statement in verse 6, "Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord." It is peculiar because in only one place, Genesis 18:12, does she call him "adonai." "After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?" There is no hint of authority or obedience here. Peter is not referring to the Bible!

Davids points out that when Peter was writing, there was a popular extracanonical Jewish work called the Testament of Abraham. Davids notes that, "Here Sarah is depicted in terms of an ideal Hellenistic wife, an illustration that serves Peter's purpose." (234) By following Sarah's (fictional) example, women could win over their unbelieving husbands.

In terms of application Davids notes:

One of Peter’s strategies is to minimize the tension between Christians and the surrounding society. He wants to make Jesus the issue, not unnecessarily divisive behavior. (234)

But as Davids goes on to observe:

However, unless we assume that first-century Greco-Roman society is the only form of society upholding virtues approved by God (an unlikely assumption), we may find that a direct application of Peter’s teaching in modern and postmodern societies would subvert his original intentions (235)

Ironically, interpretations that focus on the unilateral obedience or submission of wives to husbands, regardless of cultural context, achieve the opposite of Peter’s intention. Rather than promoting harmony with culture, they set Christian marriage partners at odds with culture and thus heighten the tension, and Christianity is perceived as undermining culture in a retrogressive way. This precisely what 1 Peter is seeking to minimize. (236)

In closing, David's makes four observations about verse 7:

First, “…the majority of scholars have argued that the husbands in question are married to Christian wives.” (237)

“Second, there is no main verb in this sentence.” Davids believes the verb implied is “be submissive to” referring back to 1 Pet 3:1; 2:18; and 2:13. “Whatever the exact referent, the implication is that the husband is experiencing a limitation on his freedom parallel to that which the wife is experiencing.” (237)

Third, the husband needs to recognize that his wife is some how weaker or at a disadvantage. He is not to exploit that disparity. “Rather, he is to treat her as and equal, a ‘fellow heir of the grace of life” – a complementary equality. (237)

“Four, the reason for the husband’s need to do this is so that ‘your’ prayers may not be hindered. … In other words, a failure to treat his wife as an equal will, by implication, result in divine displeasure and a damaged relationship in which prayers are no answered.” (237-238)

Personally, I think that when 1 Peter 2-3 is combined with the observations from the household codes from Ephesians and Colossians, a wonderful picture is created of God's vision for the household of God and the principles upon which it should operate. That these passages should be buried under such a load of hierarchicalist distortions is tragic for men and women. But even more tragic is the instruction that is lost about the nature of being the Kingdom of God.

Author:

Peter H. Davids received his M.Div. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Ph.D. From the University of Manchester. And ordained minister, he is presently scholar-in-residence at the Vineyard Church in Stafford, Texas. He also serves as adjunct professor of New Testament at Tyndale Theological Seminary near Amsterdam. This follows his recent service in Innsbruck, Austria, with International Teams in Europe as an educational missionary and church adviser. His publications include A Commentary on the Epistle of James (NIGTC), The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT) and half of the New Testament part of Hard Sayings of the Bible.

(This is the last post for "Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)")

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 12 – Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 12 – Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15. By Linda L. Belleville.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (NIV)

Dr. Belleville opens her essay with the following:

The battle over women leaders in the church continues to rage unabated in evangelical circles. At the center of the tempest sits 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Despite a broad spectrum of biblical and extrabiblical texts that highlight female leaders, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 continues to be perceived and treated as the Great Divide in the debate. Indeed, a hierarchical interpretation of this passage has become for some a litmus test for the label evangelical  and even a necessity fro the salvation of unbelievers.

The complexities of 1 Timothy 2:22-25 are many. There is barely a word or phrase that has not been keenly scrutinized. The focus here will be on the key interpretive issues( context, translation, the Greek infinitive authentein, grammar, cultural backdrop) and some common concerns regarding what this text says about men and women in positions of leadership and authority. This analysis will make use of a wide array of tools and databases now available with the advent of computer technology that can shed light on what all concede to be the truly abstruse, head-scratching aspects of the passage. (205)

Context

Dr. Belleville shows that the major thrust of this letter is corrective instruction against false teaching. About half of the letter is devoted to false teachings. She also observes that women seem to receive inordinate attention in this letter.

Behavior befitting women in worship (1 Tim 2:10-15), qualifications for women deacons (1 Tim 3:11), appropriate pastoral behavior toward older and younger women (1 Tim 5:2), support of widows (1 Tim 5:11-15) and familial responsibilities toward destitute widows (1 Tm 5:3-8, 16) are all concerns of Paul. Moreover, Paul speaks of widows who were going from house to house speaking things they ought not (1 Tim 5:13). That something more than nosiness or gossiping is involved is clear from Paul’s evaluation that “some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan” (1 Tim 5:15). (206-207)

Belleville turns her attention to the specifics of the Chapter 2 context. Verses 1 and 8 are linked in that Paul begins by saying in verse one, "I exhort, therefore," and then verse 8 opens with, "therefore I want." (Some translations in English do not explicitly say "therefore" in these passages, but Belleville is working from Greek.) The first seven verses give Paul's vision and purpose concerning godly worship. Next, Paul turns to correcting practices that detract from this vision and purpose: Angry, contentious men (v. 8) and women coming improperly attired for worship (v. 9-10). Then comes the passage that is the topic of the essay.

Verse 11 begins by calling for "quietness" (some translations "silence") and "submission." The Greek word translated into quietness here is hesychia. Silence is not a good translation of the term. It is not translated that way elsewhere in the Bible. Belleville points out that it has already been used in this chapter in verse 2, where Paul wrote, "…we may live peaceful and quite lives…." The idea here is to behave in a peaceable non-disruptive manner. Belleville shows that submission is to the teaching and the teacher. In other words, just as Paul has told the men to cease their angry disputes (are they angry about the women and their behavior/attire?) and be peaceable, he is telling the women to do the same thing. Belleville suspects a battle of the sexes here.

Translation

Belleville next addresses the Greek underlying the phrase "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man," as worded in the NIV above. This is how modern translations have translated the passage since World War II. Key to this passage is the Greek word authentein translated as "have authority" here. More common words could have been used for "authority," but this is the one used here. It is the only place it appears in the Bible. Note how the word was translated over the centuries before World War II:

• Old Latin (2nd-4th cent. A.D.): "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to dominate a man [neque dominari viro]. (209)
• Vulgate (4th-5th): "I permit not a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man [neque dominari in virum]." (209)
• Geneva (1560 edition): "I permit not a woman to teache, nether vfurpe [usurp] authoritie ouer the man." (210)
• King James Version (1611): "I suffer not a woman to teach, neither to usurpe authoritie over the man." (210)

Some more recent translations have retained this connotation as well.

• New English Bible (1961): I do not permit a woman to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer over man. (210)
• New Translation (1990): "I do not permit a woman to teach or dominate men." (210)

Dr. Belleville gives a lengthy examination of the development of the Greek word authentein and interacts with the work of hierarchicalist George Knight who argues for "exercised authority" as the translation. Belleville exposes the inaccuracy of Kinght's analysis. Concluding this section, she writes:

So there is no first-century warrant for translating authentein as “to exercise authority” and for understanding Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12 to be speaking of the carrying out of one’s official duties. Rather the sense is the Koine “to dominate, to get one’s way.” The NIV’s “to have authority over” therefore must be understood in the sense of holding sway of mastery over another. This is supported by the grammar of the verse. If Paul had a routine exercise of authority in view, he would have put it first, followed by authentein as a specific example. Given this word order, authentein meaning “to dominate” or gain the upper hand” provides the best fit in the context. (216-217)

It would appear that translators predisposed to a hierarchical understanding have altered the interpretation of this text.

Grammar

So how did "exercise authority over" seep into modern translations? Belleville writes:

He [Andreas Kostenberger] argues that the Greek correlative pairs synonyms or parallel words and not antonyms. Since “to teach” is positive, authentein must also be positive. To demonstrate his point, Kostenberger analyzes “neither” + verb 1 +”nor” + verb 2 constructions in biblical and extrabiblical literature. (217)

This is the justification for changing the historic translation of this passage. However, Belleville writes:

Yet there is a grammatical flaw intrinsic to this approach. It is limited to formally equivalent constructions, excluding functionally equivalent ones, and so the investigation includes only correlated verbs. Thus it overlooks the fact that the infinitives (“to teach,” authentein) are functioning grammatically not as verbs but as nouns in the sentence structure (as one would expect a verbal noun to do.) … The verb 1 Timothy 2:12 is actually “I permit.” “Neither to teach nor authentein” modifies the noun “a woman,” which makes the authentein clause the second of two direct objects.(217)

Belleville points out that correlate nouns serve to move us from the general to the particular. "(e.g., "where thieves break in nor steal" [i.e., break in to steal], Mt 6:20)." (218)

Of the options listed above, it is clear that “teach” and “dominate” are not synonyms, closely related ideas or antonyms. If authentein did mean “to exercise authority,” we might have a movement from general to particular. But we would expect the word order to be the reverse of what we have in 1 Timothy 2:12, that is, “neither to exercise authority [general] nor to teach [particular].” They do not form a natural progression of related ideas either (“first teach, then dominate”). On the other hand, to define a purpose or goal actually provides a good fit: “I do not permit a woman to teach so as to gain mastery over a man,” or “I do not permit a woman to teach with a view to dominating a man.” It also fits the contrast with second part of the verse: “I do not permit a woman to teach a man in a dominating way but to have quiet demeanor [literally, ‘to be in calmness’].” (218-219)

Culture and Common Concerns

Timothy was in Ephesus, the center of worship for the goddess Artemis. (Her temple was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.) Belleville writes that according to the Greeks:

It was believed that Artemis (and brother Apollo) was the child of Zeus and Leto (or Latin Latona). Instead of seeking the fellowship among her own kind, she spurned the attentions of male gods and sought instead the company of a human male consort. This made Artemis and all her female adherents superior to men. This was played out at the feast of the Lord of Streets, when the priestess of Artemis pursued a man, pretending she was Artemis herself pursuing Leimon. (219)

Belleville notes that Artemis appeared first and then her male consort. I know from other sources the Artemis worshipers often were syncretistic, infusing stories from other religions with this Artemis template. Adam and Eve was one such story. It is reasonable to conclude that what Paul is addressing here is Artemis influenced women attempting to dominate men because of their superior status and possibly teaching that Eve came first. When 1 Timothy 2:13-14 says, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." It corrects the false teaching about the creation order and clarifies that Eve is not superior, as she was deceived. As to safety in childbearing, Belleville says that verse 15 implies that it is Christ who will keep them safe; therefore "…they need not look to Artemis as the protector of women, as did other Ephesian women who turned to her for safe travel through the childbearing process." (219-220)

Summary

A reasonable reconstruction of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would be as follows: The women at Ephesus (perhaps encouraged by the false teachers) were trying to gain an advantage over the men in the congregation by teaching in a dictatorial fashion. The men in response became angry and disputed what the women were doing.

This interpretation fits the broader context of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, where Paul aims to correct inappropriate behavior on the part of both men and women (1 Tim 2:8, 11). It also fits the grammatical flow of 1 Timothy 2:11-12: “Let a woman learn in a quiet and submissive fashion. I do not, however, permit her to teach with the intent to dominate a man. She must be gentle in her demeanor.” Paul would then be prohibiting teaching that tries to get the upper hand – not teaching per se. (223)

Dr. Belleville does a great job explaining an exceedingly complex passage in a short essay. She presents a great deal of linguistic analysis, of which I presented only the conclusions, and she also addresses some side issues that I chose to omit for this summary.

If you are interested in a book-length discussion of this passage, I would recommend Richard and Catherine Kroeger's book I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of the Ancient Evidence. Three years after its publication, a collection of essays called Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 was published by those of a hierarchicalist persuasion. I suspect it was partly published as a rebuttal to Kroeger's work. It is clear from the footnotes in Bellville's book that she is rebutting some of the work done in these essays. Kroeger's book and this essay by Belleville will give a very good, in-depth introduction into how many nonhierarchical complimentarians understand this passage.

Author:

Linda L. Belleville received her M.A. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. She is professor of biblical literature at North Park Theological Seminary and an ordained minister with the Evangelical Covenant Church. Her publications include 2 Corinthians (IVPNTC), Women Leaders in the Church: Three Crucial Questions and a contribution to Two Views on Women in Ministry.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 11 – Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 11 – Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33. By I. Howard Marshall.

Dr. Marshall begins this essay by pointing out the commonality between Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33. They are patterned on the “household tables” (or household codes) common in Greco-Roman society. This is one place where I wish Marshall would have given a little more background.

Readers today could easily be forgiven for thinking both passages talk about three separate sets of relationships: Husbands and wives, fathers and children, and masters and slaves. They aren’t. They are about the relationship of one person, the paterfamilias (householder), to his wife, children, and slaves. In other words, the husband, father, and master are all the same person.

Greek philosophers typically wrote some version of the household tables as instructions to the householder on maintaining an orderly society. (The household tables had in mind the household of a large Roman villa.) Social order began in the household, with the householder keeping order among those under his charge. Paul is modeling these passages on the household tables, but he does two very unique things.

First, as Marshall notes in footnote 1, “The secular forms do not include direct addresses to the ‘inferior’ parties.” (186, fn 1) The householder ruled the other household members, virtually having the power of life and death over them. There was no need to instruct the household members because the householder had absolute power. The fact that Paul instructs all the household members suggests that all are participants in the functioning of the household.

Second, the instruction always given by Greek philosophers to the householder was to “rule” over the household. Nowhere in these passages is the householder told to rule anyone. Marshall offers some thoughts on this second point, as we will see shortly. These two factors are startling contrasts to the typical household tables.

Marshall notes that:

There is a concealed hermeneutical trap for readers of this instruction [Household tables]. Since much of it can be seen as still appropriate in the modern world, it is tempting to assume that whatever Paul says here should be applied without significant modification to our situation. In fact, adjustment to changed circumstances is required, as can be seen by the consideration of the material about children and slaves. (187)

Children were under the authority of their fathers until the father died. Only then were they truly independent. We expect that when children reach maturity around the age of twenty, they will leave home and establish independence. Are we violating scriptural instruction here? No. The context has changed.

Marshall writes:

Today Christian theologians recognize that slavery is not an acceptable form of relationship; it is rejected on the basis of larger biblical considerations having to do with the facts that all human beings are created in the image of God and that all human beings are potentially objects of redemption since Christ died for all. (189)

We can’t obey the commands concerning slaves today because we don’t even have the institution. Are we violating scriptural instruction here? No. On the contrary. We are living at standards that exceed those of scripture in this regard. The context has changed.

Marshall adds one further example concerning subjects and rulers. He observes that the New Testament merely assumes an imposed monarchical or aristocratic system. The teaching of the New Testament offers instruction in light of these assumptions. Many of us today live in representative democracies. The instructions don’t directly translate. The context has changed. Whether parenting, slavery, or government, we must understand the teaching in light of its context. The same is true for the marriage relationship.

With this in mind, Marshall quickly analyzes the Colossians 3 passage. He observes Paul has taught elsewhere that there is neither “male or female” in Christ (Gal 3:28), and this thinking may have spilled over into marriage relationships. It may have evidenced itself in ways that would be scandalous to non-believers. Husbands, in particular, may have found the social implications so radical that it would cause them not to consider the gospel. Consequently, Paul instructs them to live by the social norms even though they are one in Christ. There is patriarchalism, but it has become “love-patriarchalism” and therefore “…the road is open to mutual love between brothers and sisters in Christ.” (194) Marshall concludes this section by noting that:

The concept of marriage between equal partners is just beginning to be perceived in the New Testament, and Paul should not be expected to step outside his time and see the consequences of his teaching any more than he is to be faulted for not commanding the abolition of slavery or the development of universal suffrage. (195)

Marshall turns his attention to the Ephesians passage, which gives more complete instructions on husbands and wives. He points out the passage begins in verse 21, where Paul calls upon everyone to submit to one another. Marshall writes:

What Paul is doing, then, is to teach the need for a concern for one another’s interest and for a mutual submission in the church which provides a new context for the one-sided submission that was expected within certain relationships at the time. He is doing something new, even startling, with the language here. (197)

Following this exhortation comes the instruction of wives to submit to their husbands and for husbands to love their wives, just as in Colossians. However, in this passage, Paul introduces the metaphor of the husband as “head” of the wife. There has been considerable confusion over what this passage means because the metaphor of “head” has a different connotation in Greek than in English (or in Hebrew or Latin, for that matter.) Concerning “head,” Marshall makes these observations.

The instruction is backed up with the statement that the husband is the “head” of the wife (cf. 1 Cor 11:3), and an analogy is drawn with Jesus as “head” of the church. Attempts to weaken the sense of head to mean nothing more than “source” are not persuasive, although notions of the head as “prominent, outstanding or determinative” and thus possessing “preeminence” or functioning as “ground of being” are well founded. But attempts to show that the term must virtually always carry up front the nuance of “authority” also need careful scrutiny. (198)

I admit that I find this paragraph unclear. His statement “attempts to weaken the sense of head…” is unclear. If he means lessening its connotation of “authority,” it must first be established that “head” carries that connotation in Greek before we can speak of weakening it from that meaning. (Marshall believes that it does have this connotation in some circumstances.) Webster’s Dictionary lists 85 different definitions for “head” in English. There clearly was more than one connotation for the “head” as a metaphor in Greek as well. To limit “head” to “source” alone may be imprecise or incomplete (and it clearly is), but it is not a weakening. So I am unclear why Marshall has worded things in this way.

All this said, Marshall goes on to conclude that:

The statement that Christ is the Savior of the body favors such an understanding of the husband as essentially the provider, the one who cares for his wife. There is nothing more to the analogy than that. The wife is not her husband’s body (as Eph 5:28 makes clear), and the Christ-church relationship is an analogy or pattern, not a ground for the wife’s submission. …The injunction to husbands is not that they exercise their proper authority; rather it has a quite extraordinary emphasis on the total love and devotion that the husband must show to the wife. … Not only is the instruction to love their wives unusual and unconventional in the world of the New Testament, but the sheer intensity of the love demanded is extraordinary. (198-199)

Finally, Marshall makes some helpful observations about Evangelical Hermeneutics. He identifies three principles.

Deriving “timeless” Principles

The typical conservative evangelical method of dealing with Scripture, particularly its ethical injunctions, is to derive from any specific passage the underlying, “timeless” principles or injuctions that are expressed in the cultural, specific setting of the time, and then to ask how these are to be reexpressed in a manner appropriate to a modern setting. Despite criticisms that have been offered of it, this approach must remain an essential part of our hermeneutics. The problems lie in determining what is culturally or situtationally bound and what is of universal relevance. (200)

Metanarrative Principle

On this view the fundamental thing in Scripture is the interpretation of history and existence in terms of the (true and valid) story of God as Creator and Redeemer who acts in history to save people, with consequences for how they are to behave. On this view the Bible does not so much give detailed instructions for conduct as set the patterns that should mold our behavior.

If this approach is taken on its own, its weaknesses are obvious. But if we combine with the first approach, its strength is to emphasize the instructions for conduct must be seen and understood in light of the overarching story; Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture. All statements in Scripture are to be interpreted in light of the total context provided in the scriptural story. (201)

Progress Principle

A further principle recognizes that growth and development are possible both in doctrine and in ethical requirements beyond the explicit letter of the scriptural revelation. The recognition that slavery is incompatible with Christian faith goes beyond the explicit teaching of Scripture while being fully scriptural: we now recognize (as the biblical writers were not able to do) that slavery is inconsistent with biblical understanding of humanity in creation and redemption. (201)

Finally, I really appreciated Marshall’s final two paragraphs on applying this to present realities:

The positive elements in Ephesians are to be characteristic of both partners: a mood of subordination in which each partner subordinates their own interests to their spouse’s, the motivation of sacrificial love in which each partner strives to help their spouse’s, the motivation  of sacrifical love in which each partner strives to help the other achieve the sanctification that is God’s will for them, and the consciousness that this loving relationship is the nearest thing on earth to the relationship between Christ and the church.

These elements are possible within an egalitarian relationship. Indeed, they are more attainable within such a relationship, since the roles of both husband and wife are more fully spelled our than in the patriarchal setting. For what is being done is not to deny that wives should submit to their husbands as to the Lord but to add that husbands also must submit to their wives as to the Lord. And whereas Paul tells only husbands to show love and only wives to show respect, now both realize that they are called to love each other with the kind of love Christ has shown to the church. Within this context of total submission flowing out of love on both sides, there can develop a freedom for each to be what Christ wants them to be in their high calling as his people. (204)

(Sorry about the length of this post. Too much good stuff!)

Author:

Howard Marshall received his B.A. from Cambridge, Ph.D from Aberdeen and D.D. from Asbury. He is Honorary Research Professor of New Testament at the University of Aberdeen, where he has taught since 1964. His many publications include commentaries on the Gospel of Luke (NIGTC, Act (TNTC), 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NBC), the Pastoral Epistles (ICC), and the Johannine Epistles (NICNT). Howard and his late wife Joyce have four married children and seven grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 10 – Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 10 – Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29. By Gordon D. Fee.

The topic of Dr. Fee’s essay is Galatians 3:26-29:

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NIV)

Dr. Fee writes:

At issue in the debate about gender equality in this passage is the scope of the unexpected elaboration in Galatains 3:28 of the “all of you” in Galatians 3:27. I the equality, or oneness, of the three pairs – Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female – to be limited to the justifying work of Christ alone, or does it include other aspects of life in the believing community as well? Or is it possible that putting the question this way already exhibits prejudice toward the text one way or the other, since this question does not seem to rise immediately out of the text of Galatians itself?

But a key exegetical question, seldom noted, does beg to be answered: Why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile? And especially, why the addition of the third pair – with its formulation “male and female,” not “man and woman” (which could mean “husband and wife”) – since in similar moments elsewhere (1 Cor 12:13 [cf. 7:17-24]; Col 3:10) this pairing is not included?

The pursuit of this basic exegetical question should give us some insight into the nature and scope of the “newness” Paul sees as available in the new creation. But to get there, we must first examine the argument of Galatians as a whole and of Galatians 3:1-4:7 in particular. (172-173)

Dr. Fee points out that the crisis Paul is responding to in his letter to the Galatians is the presence of Jewish Christian agitators insisting that the men be circumcised. While many try to reduce verses 26-29 to merely a statement about salvation, Fee points out that there is much more at work here:

But in fact Paul says more than this [soteriology], and it is the “more than” that should catch our attention; for what is at stake is not simply the soteriological question of how people are saved, whether it is by faith or by works of law. The final clause in Galatians 3:28 makes that clear. Paul’s explanatory “for” does not elaborate that all are equally justified in God’s sight through faith in Christ Jesus but rather that all constitute one people (form one body) by their equal standing in Christ. After all, those involved in the struggle in Galatia are already “saved.” What is at stake is ecclesiology: who constitutes the people of God under the new covenant of Christ and the Spirit, and on what grounds are they constituted? Paul’s answer: (1) Jew and Gentile together form the one people of God, (2) on the grounds of their common trust in Christ and reception of the Spirit.

…For these three pairs represent the primary ways people were divided/separated from each other in structures of the present age that was now passing away (1 Cor  7:31; cf. 1 Cor 2:6): on the basis of race, social standing and gender. But “in Christ Jesus,” Paul asserts, these categories have lost their structural significance and relevance; that is, these very things that keep people distanced from or at odds with each other in a fallen world have been relativized in the body of Christ, where not only Jew and Greek, but masters and slaves, men and women, all form that one body together. (176-177)

Fee claims that what Paul has in mind here is the “…conviction that Christ and the Spirit have ushered in God’s promised “new creation,” which is now awaiting its final eschatological consummation (Gal 6:15).” (177) He lists two important implications of the “new creation” theology:

1. One must begin by taking Paul seriously with regard to ethnicity, status and gender no longer being relevant for constituting value and social identity in the new creation – especially in light of his three-repeated “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value” (Gal 5:6; 6:15; cf. 1 Cor 7:19). … But in the new creation none of this counts in terms of significance or value; so even though they continue to live in old age sociological contexts, they do so under a new set of rules. (179)

2. But precisely because Paul Still lived eschatologically in a world in which honor and shame were the primary values, he also reflects a degree of ambivalence toward cultural structures and norms. … To follow Christ and thus experience cultural shame [for worshiping a crucified leader] and isolation were not negotiables for Paul… Paul was quite ready to yield on certain cultural matters so as not to predicate the shame on lesser things. Thus, one should hardly expect him to tinker with roles and structures in a world that is on its way out.” (180-181)

Latter Fee writes:

The household codes in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 assume the structural norm (of  the privileged few who had large households), where the husband, father and master are the same person – the patron (hopefully benevolent) of his wife, children and slaves. But Paul radicalizes this norm in a countercultural way by insisting that he believing husband love his wife- which had very little to do with marriage in that culture. Not only so, he further insists that he love her “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25) putting the significance attached to the structures into jeopardy. In the new order husband and wife are first of all brother and sister in Christ, thus racially altering the perspective, so that she is not simply a member of his household but is in relationship to him; they are members together of “one body.” As such, either my prophesy or teach (1 Cor 14:26) – which are matters of Spirit gifting, not gender – as long as some cultural norms that distinguish male and female are maintained (1 Cor 11-2-16). (183-184)

Fee proceeds from here to point out that the church itself is God’s household and how this thinking encompasses all the relationships in the body.

Personally, I find this chapter very rich. I think Fee helps us get into Paul’s mind and get a grip on the strategy and tactics Paul uses to lead people into being the Kingdom of God. Galatians is central to bringing all the pieces together.

Author:

Gordon D. Fee received his M.A. from Seattle Pacific University and Ph.D from the University of Southern California. He is professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Regent College as well as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God. His publications include How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth; How to Read the Bible Book by Book; New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook; God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul; Listening to the Spirit in the Text; and commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians (NICNT) and the Pastoral Epistles (NIBC). He and his wife, Maudline, have four married children and twelve grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 9 - Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 9 – Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. By Craig S. Keener.

Dr. Keener's essay focuses on these two peculiar verses found near the end of chapter 14 in 1 Corinthians:

34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (NRSV)

This instruction comes at the end of a lengthy passage where Paul discusses orderly worship, including women prophesying in church. Paul cannot be talking about absolute silence. Otherwise, he has just contradicted everything he has just written. So what is the presenting problem and context of the passage? Dr. Keener points to several interpretations.

First, there is the interpretation that Paul was quoting a letter he had received from the Corinthians and refuting it with the following verse:

36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?

Keener does not give a detailed refutation of this perspective and instead refers readers to his book Paul, Women and Wives. J. Lee Grady, in his book 10 Lies the Church Tells Women, says manuscripts contain a "grave accent" just after verse 35 and indicate that what came before is a quotation. (63) He cites a video series by theologian Kenneth Bailey, whom I greatly respect. Yet I have seen an article by Bailey arguing something similar to where Keener ends up. Keener cites in his book some grammatical issues with this passage, but most notably, he maintains that everywhere else Paul engages an imaginary interlocutor, he uses rhetorical devices that are absent here. (75-76) Keener is not persuaded.

Second, there is the interpretation that men and women were seated separately in worship services, and women unfamiliar with public settings did not know how to conduct themselves. They would disrupt the proceedings to ask husbands questions and thus disrupt worship. Keener finds this proposal weak because synagogues probably were not segregated at this time. Furthermore, they were more likely to meet in homes, which would not have created this problem.

Third, some have questioned whether Paul wrote the passage. Someone may have added it later. Early Western texts have these verses in different locations. Keener writes, "The earliest evidence, including from the church fathers, treats 14:34-35 as a unit distinct from the context." (162) However, as Keener points out, the passage is in all the early manuscripts, even if it is unsettled about where it belongs. The seeming incongruence of the passage could explain the problem early scribes had with where to place it. Keener thinks the passage is part of the original text.

Fourth, some have suggested that this passage prohibits women teachers in keeping with 1 Timothy 2:11-12. However, 1 Timothy had not yet been written, and nothing about teaching is mentioned anywhere near this passage. That makes this interpretation highly unlikely.

Fifth, some have suggested that Paul is prohibiting women from judging prophecy, going back a few verses to verses 29-30:

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent.

But as Keener observes, "one is hard-pressed to see why restricting women from judging prophecies in Corinth would thereby restrict women from teaching (yet not prophesying or praying) then or today." (163) The fact is that there is nothing in verse 34-35 that shows that Paul has this in mind. Further, where does Paul ever suggest that judging prophecies is of some higher degree of authority than prophesying itself? He doesn't.

Keener believes the answer is found in the verses themselves. The presenting issue is not all speech but a specific type of speech, namely asking questions. Keener also observes something shameful about what is going on with these woman inquisitors. What are these questions, and what is shameful about them?

Keener points out that it was normal for people to interrupt a rabbi or teacher in such settings with clarification questions or to challenge particular points. However, two concerns may have been involved here. First, for many conservative Roman and Greek men, the behavior of women challenging a male speaker may have been highly offensive. This behavior could discredit the believers in the eyes of the community. Second, most women simply did not have the education of most men. Many would likely have asked elementary questions that only distracted from the instruction instead of contributing to it, thus making themselves a nuisance to the community. Keener suggests that these were the presenting issues Paul was addressing. "The law" was likely civil law about women's behavior in public settings, in his estimation. The issue is not about gender but about "...propriety  and learning – neither of which need restrain women's voices in the church today." (171)

What also should not be lost in this discussion is the astonishing instruction of Paul that husbands should teach their wives! As we saw in Chapter 7, the Jewish tradition was to give minimal instruction to women partly because it would take them away from the economic duties of the household and partly because it was a wasted effort to teach women. Paul includes women as full disciples.

Keener's interpretation does seem to address the various issues involved with the text. I haven't read much about Kenneth Bailey's take on this and would like to know more.

Author:

Craig S. Keener received his M.A. and M.Div from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Ph.D. from Duke University. He is professor of New Testament at Eastern Seminary and ordained in the National Baptist Convention, USA. He has written twelve books, including The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament; Paul, Women and Wives; And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament; Black Man's Religion; and commentaries on Matthew, John and Revelation. Craig and his wife, Medine, who teaches history, were married as this volume was being written.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 8 – Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 8 – Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. By Gordon D. Fee.

As Gordon Fee notes, many key aspects of this passage are shrouded in mystery. What precisely is the presenting issue? What is the content of Paul’s “head” metaphor? Who are the “angels” referred to in this passage?

Fee does not come to a definitive conclusion about the nature of the presenting issue. Clearly, it has something to do with attire/appearance and bringing honor or shame. At the end of the essay, he writes:

In a culture where the vast majority of women are dependent on a man for life in the world, a woman who brings shame on her own head by getting rid of one the cultural markers of distinction also brings shame on her metaphorical head, the one on whom the woman is primarily dependent and to whom she is responsible in the Greco-Roman household (which also serves as the nucleus expression of the house church that meets in the household.) (159)

Whatever the nature of the specific actions, Fee believes this to be the central focus of this passage of scripture.

Fee spends considerable time here examining the metaphorical use of head (and this will be revisited in a later essay dealing with Ephesians 5 and 6.) The key passage is verse 3:

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.”

Unlike other places where Paul uses this metaphor in Ephesians or Colossians, there is no mention of a corresponding body. In those passages, Fee suggests the metaphor draws on the Greek idea of the head as the supporting, life-giving part of the body. Fee notes that in Hebrew, the “head” was frequently used as a metaphor to denote the leader or clan chieftain, similar to how we might use it today. Greeks thought of the head as the body’s most prominent part or the “source” of the body’s working systems but not quite the idea of authority. In footnote 28, Fee writes:

The clearest evidence for the real differences between the Jewish and Greek metaphorical uses is to be found in the Septuagint (LXX). In the hundreds of places where the Hebrew rosh is used for the literal head on a body, the translators invariably used the only word in Greek that means the same thing, kephale. But in the approximately 180 times it appears as a metaphor for the leader or chieftain, they almost always [six exceptions] eliminate the metaphor altogether and translate it arche (“leader”), which is evidence that they were uncomfortable with (unfamiliar with?) the Jewish metaphor and simply translated it out. (150, fn 28)

Concerning Paul’s use of the metaphor in this passage, Fee writes:

The earliest extant consistent interpretation of the metaphor in this passage is to be found in a younger contemporary of Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444?), who explicitly interprets in terms of the Greek metaphor: “Thus we can say that ‘the head of every man is Christ.’ For he was made by [dia] him … as God; ‘but the head of the women is the man,’ because she was taken out of his flesh…. Likewise ‘the head of Christ is God,’ because he is of him [ex autou] by nature” (Ad Arcadiam et MArinam 5.6). That is, as with Chrysostom’s understanding of the two pairs (God-Christ, Christ-man), Cyril is ready to go this way with all three pairs because of what is said in verse 8: that the woman was created from the man. Not only was the idea that the head is the source of supply and support for all the body’s systems a natural metaphor in the Greek world, but in this case it also supported Cyril’s Christological concern (not to have Christ “under” God in a hierarchy), just as it did for Chrysostom.

The question for us, then, is whether Paul was speaking out of his Jewish heritage or whether in speaking into the Corinthians’ Greek setting he used the metaphor that would have been more familiar to them. … For several reasons, it seems most likely that something very much like Cyril’s understanding was in Paul’s mind. (151)

Fee goes forward from here to make three observations.

1. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, nothing that is said following this verse hints at an authority-subordination relationship. (151)

2. In one instance in our passage where Paul might be picking up some dimension of the metaphor (1 Cor 11:8-9, the relationship envisaged is clearly not one of subordination to the man as “leader.” [“women is the glory of man”] … If this is an extension of the metaphor in 1 Corinthians 11:3, then it clearly points to “man” as metaphorical head in the sense Cyril maintains. (151-152)

3. One of the ongoing puzzles for all interpreters is why Paul should included the third member in his opening sentence, since “God as the head of Christ” is not picked up again in any way. Most likely this is because the saying had prior existence and Paul is simply appealing to it. (152)

I think the critical conclusion of Fee’s essay is here.

In the process he [Paul] denominates “tongues speaking” a form of prayer (1 Cor 14:2, 14, 28), while “prophecy” represents all forms of Spirit-inspired intelligible speech, capable of edifying the whole community (1 cor 14:6). Thus “tongues” equals speech that is God-directed (prayer) and “prophecy” equals speech that is community-directed.

In light of this distinction, it seems altogether likely that Paul intends “praying and prophesying” to be not exclusive of other forms of ministry but representative of ministry in general. And since “prophets” precedes “teachers” in the ranking in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and prophesying is grouped with teaching, revelation and knowledge in 1 Corinthians 14:6, one may legitimately assume that women and men together shared in all these expressions of Spirit gifting, including teaching, in the gathered assembly. (149)

At the end of the essay, Fee offers some theories about who the angels are in verse 10 and points back to 13:1, where he wrote of speaking in tongues as “speaking the language of angels.” Speaking in tongues gave new believers a new level of status, and Fee examines the ramifications of that might have led to a movement toward androgyny. As this is more speculative and not to the central message of the passage, I will not recapitulate his whole discussion here. The key issue is that far from teaching a male-to-female hierarchy, Fee maintains that this passage likely puts men and women on equal status in the Church's work.

Author:

Gordon D. Fee received his M.A. from Seattle Pacific University and Ph.D from the University of Southern California. He is professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Regent College as well as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God. His publications include How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth; How to Read the Bible Book by Book; New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook; God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul; Listening to the Spirit in the Text; and commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians (NICNT) and the Pastoral Epistles (NIBC). He and his wife, Maudline, have four married children and twelve grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 7 – Jesus’ Treatment of Women in the Gospels

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 7 – Jesus' Treatment of Women in the Gospels. By Aida Besancon Spencer.

Dr. Spencer opens this essay by observing that both hierarchicalists and egalitarians agree that Jesus did much to affirm women and elevate their status. She identifies four ways she believes Jesus accomplished this transformation and the catalogs instances that illustrate this:

• First, Jesus' conversations with women indicate his esteem for them. (128)
• Second, Jesus' teachings are favorable to women. (128)
• Third, women form an important part of Jesus' ministry, helping usher in the time of God's rule. (128)
• Fourth, Jesus' teachings and comments often consider a woman's perspective. (129)

All sides seem to agree on these assessments, but Dr. Spencer believes that hierarchicalists have not considered the context of Jesus' actions and worked through the implications. For instance, Spencer shows how Jewish rabbis taught that women should spend their time in the home occupied with household economic matters. Time spent studying the law by women would detract from their household care. But as Dr. Spencer points out:

However, this emphasis on women’s remaining in the household as much as economically possible does not flow from any clear teaching in the Old Testament. (According to Deuteronomy 31:22 and Joshua 8:35 all people – Hebrew men, women, children and foreigners – were exhorted to attend regularly the reading of the Law.) Rather it reflects an inculturation [sic] from the larger pagan society that goes far back in time. (131)

Jesus does not treat women purely as homemakers. A woman declares to Jesus, "Blessed is the woman who gave you birth and nursed you!" but Jesus retorts, "Blessed rather are those who hear the Word of God and obey it." (Luke 11:27-28) It is Jesus who values Mary sitting at his feet with other listeners over Martha's insistence that Mary helps her with the household chores typically expected of women. Jesus directly challenged the position assigned to women in society.

Dr. Spencer then turns her attention to the claim that because Jesus' twelve disciples were men, there can be only men in leadership. From Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, written in the fourth century, Spencer gives us this quote:

We do not permit our “women to teach in the Church,” but only to pray and hear those that teach; for out Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although he did not want such. (133)

As Spencer points out, this argument is problematic at several levels. "First, it assumes that gender is the abiding precedent but does not extend this precedent to race or political state…" (133) If only men are allowed, then why not only Jewish men? After all, Jesus could have selected Gentile men just as easily as he could have selected women. "Second, it assumes that what the biblical model does not establish it thereby prohibits. Yet although the biblical model establishes that men can be apostles, it does not establish that women cannot be. … In effect, if the text does not specifically say you may do something, then you may not." (133) She notes, "Nowhere does Jesus say – or even imply in anything he says – that only men can be leaders in the church. Similarly, neither ecumenical councils at Nicea and Chalcedon (A.D. 325 and 451) limits church leadership to men." (134) "He [Jesus] does not teach that we will advance God's reign by maintaining male-female distinctions in leadership." (134)

Spencer presents us with the symbolic nature of the twelve apostles and their connection with the Old Testament covenant. Spencer writes.

The twelve, who represent the twelve tribes, do so because they also represent the twelve patriarchs. Thus the Twelve could not have been other than Jewish free males. If there had been Gentiles or women or slaves among them, the deliberate reconstruction of Israel in Jesus himself, signaled by the father at his baptism (Mt 3:13-17), simply would not have worked. As an integral part of the ministry of Jesus, the Twelve represented not only the twelve patriarchs/tribes of Israel but also the newly constituted Israel under the new covenant in Christ. Consequently, the twelve cannot serve as precedents for Gentile leadership, which is what prevails in the church today. (136)

Spencer elaborates more in a lengthy discussion in footnote 33 that shines even more light.

I am indebted to Gordon Fee for some of these observations. Fee further notes that during the whole of his ministry Jesus himself symbolically steps into the role of Israel, from his baptism (= Red Sea) and forty days in the desert to be tested (he overcame precisely where Israel failed), to his assuming the role both of Israel’s King-Messiah (Son of God; Ps 2:7) and of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, articulated for him in the voice from heaven at his baptism. And at the end he symbolically “cleanses” the temple and offers his own resurrection as the new locus of God’s presence among his people (Jn 2:22). With the twelve about him at the final meal, he reconstitutes the bread and wine of Passover to become a meal in which they will recall his death as effecting the new covenant. At the same time, the one certain “instruction” he gave to the Twelve is about their eschatological role in “judging” Israel (Lk 22:13-30). (136, fn 33)

Next, Dr. Spencer turns her attention to what distinguished someone as an apostle in the New Testament, including but not limited to the original twelve.

• "First, an apostle by definition is messenger, someone "sent off" with orders." (137)
• "Second, the first apostles had to have been "with" Jesus." (137)
• "Third, an apostle is an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ." (137)
• "Fourth, an apostle is commissioned to preach God's reign: "As you go, proclaim this message: 'The kingdom heave has come near' (Mt 10:7; Mk 3:14; Lk 9:2). Preaching (kerysso) is never action prohibited to women." (137)

Spencer notes, "After Jesus' death and resurrection, apostle was broadened to refer to other disciples who had been with Jesus and now were sent off as witnesses to the resurrection. And in the new covenant era the apostolic witness includes both women and men." (137)

So how did people like James (Jesus' brother), Barnabas, Andronicus, and Junia become apostles? They were most likely among the 500 witnesses Christ appeared to and commissioned after the resurrection, as mentioned in 1 Cor 15:3-8 and Acts 1. As we saw with women like Mary and Martha, some women sat under Jesus' teaching, witnessed Jesus' resurrection, and were among those commissioned to take the good news to the whole world. One of the most astonishing aspects of the gospel story is that in a culture where a woman's testimony was invalid in a court of law, God sent women messengers from the tomb to announce the good news of the most momentous event in human history.

Dr. Spencer writes:

When scholars disqualify women from church leadership by using the twelve male apostles as precedents, they ignore the significance both of their number (twelve) and their Jewishness, and they dismiss the importance of women’s functioning as “apostles” and of Junia’s being titled an “apostle.” Why choose the Twelve and not, for example, the loyal Galilean women as paradigmatic of all leadership, since after Pentecost the rest of the Twelve (after Judas) are not replaced after their deaths in Acts (e.g. Acts 12:2)? If their particular ministry was not perpetuated, how can the Twelve serve as a precedent for church leadership today? (140)

I very much appreciate Dr. Spencer's insights in this essay. It is so easy to get lost in all the details of a given passage, but if the hierarchical status of men and women was so critical for the Kingdom, why was Jesus completely silent about it? Furthermore, why did he engage in practices that directly undermined it? I also appreciate her analysis of the purpose of selecting the twelve Jewish men.

(For further reading on women in the New Testament, I would suggest Women in the New Testament: A Middle Eastern Cultural View by Dr. Kenneth E. Bailey. (Acrobat .pdf))

Author:

Aida Bescancon Spencer received her M.Div. and Th.M. from Princeton Theological Seminary and Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. She is professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conewll Theological Seminary and an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church USA. She also serves as pastor of organization with Pilgrim Church, Beverly, Massachusetts. Her publications include Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry and Paul’s Literary Style. With her husband, William David Spencer, she has also written The Global God, Joy Through the Night and the Prayer Life of Jesus. Aida and William have one grown son.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 6 – Women Leaders in the Bible

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 6 – Women Leaders in the Bible. Linda L. Belleville.

Dr. Belleville opens her essay with this:

Studies of women leaders in the Bible can be readily found. Yet three research tools are now in hand that make revisiting the topic both prudent and worthwhile. First, there are recently published Qumran papyri and Greco-Roman inscriptions, which challenge considerably the common stereotype of women in both Jewish and Greco-Roman circles as little more than chattel. Second, there are current sociohistorical studies that show that there were more women leaders in antiquity, particularly in formerly male-dominated arenas, than has commonly been acknowledged. Third, Greek computer databases permit a more informed and accurate understanding of women’s roles in Scripture than has been attainable previously. (110-111)

With this introduction, Belleview lifts up three examples of women leaders from the Old Testament: Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah. She notes that some have discounted women like these based on a presumption that they became leaders due to a vacuum of strong leadership from men. She writes:

It is sometimes remarked that God permitted women to lead at times when Israel lacked adequate male leadership. But the examples of Miriam, Deborah and Huldah, who ministered in the context of other renowned male figures (Moses, Barak, Josiah, Jeremiah, etc.), demonstrate the opposite. (113)

Other passages in the Bible speak of unnamed female prophets, and female prophets were well-known in antiquity. She points out that far from being exceptional cases, it is more likely that these women "…were only the tip of the leadership iceberg." (114)

Moving to the New Testament, Dr. Belleville notes the impact of Pentecost.

The result was a major paradigm shift from the male priesthood of the Jewish cult to the charismatic worship format and gender-inclusive leadership of the early church. [In a footnote here she refers readers to Chapter 16 which we have yet to cover.] “When you assemble,” Paul states, “each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (1 Cor 14:26 NASB) (115)

No gender distinction is made here for participation in worship or for being a worship leader.

Belleville lifts up several women and their authoritative positions in the church. One of the most striking passages is the reference to Junia in Romans 16:7, as being "outstanding of among the apostles." Junia is a feminine name. The masculine form would be Junias, much like Julia and Julius. Some English translations have rendered the name Junias to suggest that a man was being referred to here. The reality is that nowhere in the surviving ancient literature do we find the name Junias. Junia is always used about a woman. Furthermore, I know from other studies that while some early manuscripts render the name "Julia," the "Junias" translation is not found in manuscripts before the 13th century. The Early Church fathers, like Origen of Alexander (185-253), Jerome (340-419), and John Chrysostom (347-407), wrote about Junia as a woman.

(Hierarchicalist Wayne Grudem and John Piper point to Epiphanius (315-403), who claimed Junia was male and used this as evidence for lack of certainty about gender. They fail to reveal that Epiphanius also wrote that "Prisca" was a male, which is absurd. He also wrote, "the female sex is easily seduced, weak, and without much understanding. The Devil seeks to vomit out this disorder through women. … We wish to apply masculine, reasoning and destroy the folly of these women." (See, "Romans 16:7 – Resolving the Interpretive Issues." p. 2))

Belleville goes on to show that some claim that the wording means "outstanding in the eyes of the apostles" instead of "one of the outstanding apostles." According to her analysis, only the latter is possible.

For one, episemos is the adjective “notable” and not the passive verb “well known to.” Two, it is a compound of epi (upon) and sema (mark), yielding the literal sense “having a mark, inscription,” “bearing the marks of,” and the metaphorical sense “remarkable, notable” (LSJ s.v.). This would make Junia a “distinguished” or “remarkable” member of (not simply known to) the apostles. Three, overwhelming usage of the preposition en and the personal dative (inside and outside the New Testament) bears the local meaning “in/among.” (119)

Belleville writes about the deacon Phoebe. In Romans 16:1, Phobe is identified as the one delivering the letter, and while diakonos is elsewhere translated as deacon, it is rendered servant in many modern English translations. There is no basis for this other than beginning with the presumption that a woman could not be a deacon. Belleville notes that "A Church's welcome was based on the presentation of credentials. This is why Paul routinely provided credentials for his letter carriers (e.g., 2 Cor 1:16-24; Eph 6:21-22; Phil 2:25-30; Col 4:7-9)" (121). The diakonos label was to indicate her status and credibility. Origen understood Phoebe to be a deacon, and Chrysostom understood deacon to be a term of rank.

Belleville mentions the "church planters" Priscilla and Aquila" and Paul's peculiar practice (by ancient standards) of naming the wife first, almost certainly indicating her prominent status. Belleville also raises the issue of Nympha (Col 4:15), who had a church meeting in her home. Bellville writes, "Patronage of a house church was an authoritative role. The household in Greco-Roman times was automatically in charge of any group that met in his or her domicile." (123) Other studies I have read show that Romans were not allowed to assemble of their own accord. Only approved voluntary associations known to the state were permitted. Household associations were one permitted form, but they could only be formed by the householder, who was, in turn, responsible for the association's activities.

Dr. Belleville has only touched on some of the more prominent examples from Scripture, and I have not touched on the examples she has given. Still, these examples alone provide clear evidence of women serving in leadership capacities.

Author:

Linda L. Belleville received her M.A. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. She is professor of biblical literature at North Park Theological Seminary and an ordained minister with the Evangelical Covenant Church. Her publications include 2 Corinthians (IVPNTC), Women Leaders in the Church: Three Crucial Questions and a contribution to Two Views on Women in Ministry.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 5 – From Old Testament Law to New Testament Gospel

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 5 – From Old Testament Law to New Testament Gospel. Ronald W. Pierce.

Ronald Pierce writes:

In an effort to seek understanding of these passages in the broader context of the Bible’s teaching regarding men and women, this chapter has a twofold emphasis. First, it will highlight the positive, regulatory character of the law, given that it was designed (in part) to expose and restrain sinful behavior. In other words, the law not only showed us our need for redemption but also functioned as guardian and disciplinarian until that redemption was more fully realized.

Second, this essay will demonstrate a redemptive process, of which the Law is but one stage. This process begins with (1) God’s good creation, which is (2) marred by humanity’s sin, which in turn is (3) regulated by the Mosaic law, a structure that is transcended in (4) the gospel. Thus just as the law took humanity beyond the judgments of Genesis 3:14-19, the New Testament believer is called to go beyond the law to the fullness of the gospel. This process is confirmed by comments of Jesus (Mt 5:17-48; 19:1-20) and Paul (Gal 3:19, 23; 4:4). Jesus explains the implications already inherent in the law yet adds his own countertheses that constrast a traditional understanding of the Torah with the fuller revelation of the gospel. Likewise, Paul argues that the law “was added because of transgressions,” guarding those under its care, while serving as their “disciplinarian” until “the fullness of time” when a Redeemer would appear, “Born of a Woman…under the law.” In both contexts the law is honored yet understood as part of a redemptive process that led to something better. (96-97)

Those familiar with the "redemptive movement hermeneutic" articulated by William J. Webb will undoubtedly see a close relationship. Indeed, in footnote 7, Pierce acknowledges that he is closely paralleling Webb's ideas. I have two short posts about the RMH, which you can find here. We will also be visiting the RMH in chapters 22 and 23.

Dr. Pierce goes on to show how this plays out with five different themes:

1. Adultery and divorce
2. Slaves, daughters, and prisoners of war
3. Levirate responsibility and a breach of modesty
4. Vows, purification, and ceremonial participation
5. Priests and firstborns

Pierce shows how each was a significant move toward the restraint of evil. We tend to use today's standards to measure Old Testament law. When this is done, the OT standards leave much to be desired. But this is not the appropriate vantage point from which to view the Old Testament laws. The astonishing feature is the level of protection it gave women and the vulnerable compared to history before that time and the surrounding cultures. It set the Israelites on a trajectory away from fallen humanity toward God's vision of humanity. Pierce writes, "Thus the Torah does not reverse the judgment of male dominance (Gen 3:16), it guards and protects the woman within the situation." (98)

Pierce moves on to show that the New Testament takes things further. The law restrained evil. The law restricted divorce, protecting women from arbitrary divorces initiated by the husband. But Jesus said that, except for marital unfaithfulness, divorce is wrong. He equated hating someone with murder. He equated looking lustfully at a woman with adultery. The discussion moves from an OT view of restraining evil to being transformed into a new humanity. Jesus points us on that trajectory toward being the Kingdom of God that will only be fully realized when he returns. Our focal point moves from strict adherence to laws given in the past to the realization of a new humanity in the future and being that new humanity as best we can in the present. This is not a contradiction or refutation of the law. It is the fulfillment of it. The new humanity in the new kingdom is what the law was pointing to all along.

I find Pierce's perspective and the redemptive movement hermeneutic offered by Webb (which will get to more fully later) to be essential in putting the scope of biblical teaching in perspective.

Author:

Ronald W. Pierce received his M.Div and Th.M from Talbot School of Theology and PhD. from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is professor of biblical studies and theology in the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, as well as an ordained minister with the Evangelical Free Church of America. His publications include OT Interactive (a computer learning program for Old Testament survey classes) as well as several articles in the JETS, TrinJ and BBR. He also serves on the steering committee and occasionally cochairs Evangelicals and Gender Study Group at ETS. Ron and his wife, Pat, have directed Biola's travel-study program to the Holy Land for fifteen years. They currently reside in Fullerton, California, and have two children.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 4 – Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis 1-3

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 4 – Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis 1-3. By Richard S. Hess.

This essay is the first of ten in Part II that addresses specific scriptures pertinent to the discussion. Most of these essays are cursory, and I am giving an even more condensed presentation of the material. My intent here is not to thoroughly explain every argument but merely to remind us of the issues the authors point to.

Dr. Hess is examining the first three chapters of Genesis. He makes the case that both male and female are created in God's image. What is essential to this idea of "image-bearing" is the dominion that men and women are given dominion over the earth. He writes, "There is nothing in this first chapter to suggest anything other than an equality of male and female created together in the image of God." (82)

Hess writes, "Whereas Genesis 1 describes God as Creator of the cosmos and all of life, Genesis 2 focuses on the creation of the man along with his home, work and companion." (82) Most hierarchicalists find the idea of primogeniture in this chapter. The idea is that because Adam came first, he is in authority. This usually comes from an interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:13 that Paul was teaching hierarchy and using primogeniture (Adam created first) as his support. Therefore, interpreting this has everything to do with how we understand 1 Timothy and very little to do with the actual passage. Hess rejects the primogeniture argument for three reasons.

First, no rights of the firstborn found in Scripture provide a logical connection to creation order as establishing authority. Second, the norm among the patriarchs is not primogeniture but God’s blessing on the second or third born (e.g. Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his brothers, Ephraim over Manasseh, etc.). Third, in the biblical laws only Deuteronomy 21:15-17 mentions this principle in the context of the firstborn son of an unloved wife. There the basis of the right of the firstborn is found in the statement because he ‘is the first sign of this father’s strength (NIV). This is the only biblical text that could be construed as a rationale for primogeniture (there are no parallel texts that speak to this issue). (84)

Instead, Hess concludes:

Thus the man and the woman were created sequentially in Genesis 2 in order to demonstrate the need they have for each other, not to justify an implicit hierarchy. (84)

Hess observes that man (male and female) is given responsibility over the garden, but nowhere is man given authority over woman. They are co-rulers as joint image bearers of God.

Another common passage referenced by hierarchicalists is where God says he will make a helper (ezer) for the man. Some maintain that a helper is, by definition, a subordinate position. Yet ezer is used elsewhere in the Bible to speak of God's relationship to Israel, being Israel's helper who comes to their aid. The use of the term implies nothing hierarchical.

Another frequent claim is that in calling his new helper "woman," Adam was naming the woman and thereby exercising authority over her. The Hebrew for "man" is ish. The feminine form of the name is ishah. Similarly, the other word for man is adam, and the feminine is adamah which means "ground" or "earth." The issue here is not so much naming as wordplay illustrating the man's identification of ishah as complementary to himself. The account also goes out of its way to note that the woman is created from the man's side (therefore equal) and is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh." Man and woman are an equal and complementary. Nothing of hierarchy is implied here.

Finally, Dr. Hess brings us to Genesis 3 and the fall from grace. Of special interest is the 3:16-17. The first part of this passage had often been interpreted as increased toil/pain in childbearing. Hess argues that there are two clauses to this. Increased toil, as in agricultural work, and perhaps additional pain in bearing children are in mind here. Some suggest that Adam's naming of Eve indicates authority over her. Hess shows that havvah is the word we translate "Eve" and is associated with the word hay which means alive or living. Calling her Eve was merely denoting her function and had nothing to do with issues of authority or hierarchy.

The central verse is 3:17, "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." Hess makes the case that the better literal reading is "You will want to dominate your husband but your husband will rule over you." However, he emphasizes that this is not equivalent to saying, "You will want to dominate your husband but your husband should rule over you." Hess writes,

Rather, Genesis 3:16-17 is best understood as a description of the new order of things, of how life will be lived as the result of the Fall, rather than how it should be lived. (92)

Hess' point is that because of the fall, there will be a struggle of will between the sexes.

I observed that issues like "primogeniture" or "subordinate helper" in the early chapters of Genesis happen only if we bring pre-existing assumptions to the text about the intent of the text. At some level, that is unavoidable, but it is doubly important that we examine those assumptions before we employ them. Nothing in the first three chapters of Genesis explicitly states a hierarchy. I think the summary of the research that Hess presents shows that much of what is touted as implicit evidence of hierarchical structures is very weak when given much scrutiny.

Author:

Richard S. Hess received his M.Div and Th.M from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and PhD. from Hebrew Union College. He is professor of Old Testament at Denver Seminary and editor of the Denver Journal: An Online Review of Current Biblical and Theological Studies. In addition to more than seventy articles published in various biblical and ancient Near Eastern journals and collection, he has edited ten books and written three, including Studies in the Personal Names in Genesis 1-11 and Joshua (TOTC). He serves as an editor for a commentary series on the Septuagint and has in press commentaries on Leviticus and the Song of Songs. Rick and his wife, Jean, who is a pastor of a Presbyterian church, have three children.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 3 – Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part I: Setting the Stage (The Historical Back Drop)

Chapter 3 – Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality. By Ronald W. Pierce.

Dr. Pierce walks us through a brief history of the egalitarian movement of the last three decades. He notes that changes in the culture in the 1960s, and the evangelical reengagement of culture in the 1970s, once again raised the question of women in the life of church and society. Pierce points to The Place of Women in the Church (1958) by Charles Ryrie as symbolic of the virtual equation of the Victorian stereotype of women with "the biblical view."

Dr. Pierce points to books authored by Letha Scanzoni, Nancy Hardesty, and Paul Jewett, published from 1974-1975, as some of the first efforts by modern egalitarian scholars to reopen the issue. Some of these books (like Jewett's) were outside the mainstream of evangelical scholarship. More articles and books began to be published within the mainstream of evangelicalism, but as Pierce points out, "Throughout the 1970s' biblical feminism' was regarded as an oxymoron by most evangelicals, as well as by liberal and secular feminists." (60)

Dr. Pierce characterizes 1980-1986 as a time of increasing dialog. In academic circles, egalitarian thinking made great advances, but there was a cultural backlash against secular feminists that took its toll on evangelical egalitarians by the end of the decade. By 1986 J. I. Packer wrote that "…the burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women from the office of teaching and ruling within the congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than on those who challenge it." (62)

Pierce describes the period 1986-1989 as a time of formalizing the division between traditionalists and egalitarians. He describes the "Men and Women in Biblical and Theological Perspective" conference in Atlanta, sponsored by the Evangelical Theological Society, as a turning point because both sides faced how difficult it would be to persuade the other of their position. Pierce believes that traditionalists realized the truth of Packer's observation and were on the defensive. The year 1987 witnessed the founding of both Christians for Biblical Equality and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Since that time, Pierce notes that the debate has moved out of the academy and into the wider church. He notes the emergence of the (in my opinion peculiar) "equal in being but unequal in function" perspective advocated by the traditionalist. He also notes the growing trend among traditionalists, who came to prefer the moniker "complimentarians," to become more strident about hierarchy while behaving increasingly like egalitarians. Meanwhile, as gender issues relating to homosexuality came to the fore in culture, egalitarians began to make explicit why the exegesis and hermeneutics that led them to an egalitarian position did not lead to an endorsement of homosexual relationships.

Dr. Pierce closes his chapter with the following paragraphs, which also make a good conclusion to Part 1 of the essay:

The following observations are warranted by a representative survey of evangelical egalitarian literature over the past thirty years. First, a theology of gender equality has been recovered from its nineteenth-century roots. Though undoubtedly influenced by the modern feminist movement, it was not the result of it; rather the secular served as a catalyst to awaken the sacred.

Second, the struggles within evangelicalism in the 1980s had the long-term effect of strengthening the resolve of biblical egalitarians, forcing them to move to a greater level of maturity as the result of vigorous self-defense.

Third, although the initial backlash of the late 1980s is past, the resultant polarity of the two sides presents an ongoing challenge for evangelicals. The need to get beyond this impasse in order to demonstrate unity with diversity in the body of Christ is greater than ever. Thus another matter of unfinished business is resuming dialogue with a spirit of reconciliation.

Fourth, the rise of the biblical equality movement has effected a change of practice, if not of mind, for many traditionalists. Not only have scores changed to and egalitarian position, but many others have modified their traditionalism into a position that ends up being virtually egalitarian in practice. The result is that things seem to be generally better for evangelical women in marriage and ministry at the beginning of the twenty-first century, even in many so-called complemetarian circles.

Fifth, a high view of Scripture has been an explicit part of evangelical egalitarian theology from the beginning. Despite some accusations to the contrary, these conservatives have not dismissed the teaching of the Bible as “merely cultural” nor have they developed a special hermeneutic to get around it, nor have they simply refused to submit to its authority. The evidence for this can be found in the chapters that follow in this volume. (74-75)

Author:

Ronald W. Pierce received his M.Div and Th.M from Talbot School of Theology and PhD. from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is professor of biblical studies and theology in the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, as well as an ordained minister with the Evangelical Free Church of America. His publications include OT Interactive (a computer learning program for Old Testament survey classes) as well as several articles in the JETS, TrinJ and BBR. He also serves on the steering committee and occasionally cochairs Evangelicals and Gender Study Group at ETS. Ron and his wife, Pat, have directed Biola's travel-study program to the Holy Land for fifteen years. They currently reside in Fullerton, California, and have two children.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 2 – Evangelical Women in Ministry a Century Ago: The 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part I: Setting the Stage (The Historical Back Drop)

Chapter 2 – Evangelical Women in Ministry a Century Ago: The 19th and Early 20th Centuries. By Janette Hassey.

Dr. Hassey opens her essay with an anecdote about Mabel C. Thomas, a Moody Bible Institute graduate class of 1913. The June 1927 Alumni News had an article that featured her work as the pastor of a church in Kansas. She testified to the value of her MBI training.

Hassey uses this to illustrate the acceptance of women in pastoral and leadership positions within several evangelical streams, and even fundamentalist streams, in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century. At that time, key evangelical figures like Dwight L. Moody, A. J. Gordon, W. B. Riley, and J. R. Straton found no inconsistency between women preachers and biblical literalism. She shows how early Bible Schools like the Missionary Training College for Home and Foreign Missions (founded 1887 by A. B. Simpson), Gordon Bible College (founded 1889 by A. J. Gordon), and Northwestern Bible and Missionary Training School all trained and employed women in leadership roles. The Moody Bible Institute, founded in 1889, was the leader of the pack.

The revivalist holiness churches were probably among the greatest leaders in promoting women preachers. Free Methodists, Wesleyan Methodists, the Church of the Nazarene, and the Salvation Army all had women leaders. The Pentecostals, emerging from the holiness movement, also embraced female leadership. Free Will Baptists, German and Swedish Baptists had women leaders, and American Baptists in the North ordained dozens of women in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Quakers, Evangelical Mennonites, Adventist Christian Church, Cumberland Presbyterians, the Evangelical Free Church, and some congregational traditions also had women preachers and leaders.

Hassey says that over an almost seventy-year period (1859-1926), there was a steady and growing stream of publications advocating for women in preaching and leadership. Leaders included Methodist Holiness leader Phoebe Palmer (1807-1874), Catherine Booth (1829-1890, cofounder of the Salvation Army), temperance leader Frances Willard (1839-1898), Free Church leader Fredrik Franson, Free Methodist B. T. Roberts (1823-1893), Baptist A. J. Gordon (1836-1895), Methodist physician and reformer Katherine Bushnell (1856-1946), Lee Anna Starr (1853-1937) and John Roach Straton (1875-1929).

Concerning works published by authors like these, Hassey observes:

Those authors who argued primarily for women’s right to preach tended to focus on the Joel 2 – Acts 2 prophecy-fulfillment passages which state that “your daughters shall prophecy.” They viewed Pentecost as the pivotal event in women’s liberation. Other writers pushed for women’s equality in all spheres of life, not just the pulpit. They stressed the broader theological issues of creation-redemption. They saw the incarnation of Christ and his victory on the cross over Satan as the crucial event for women, since Christ’s atonement ameliorates the effects of the Fall. (45)

Hassey identifies three reasons she thinks this rising tide of women's equality came about.

Evangelical Theology – Quoting Presbyterian Chalres H. Pridgeon, “We can split hairs, look wise, and hold up some possible meaning of a text or two of Scripture when the whole trend of God’s Word is on the other side; millions are going to hell while we delay.” (48) Evangelical fervor by many found the case against women to be a matter of intellectualism that stood in the way evangelism. As Hassey notes, “inerrantists sat on both side of the fence.” (48)

Charismatic Church Leadership – There was a growing emphasis on charismatic authority instead and a de-emphasis on formal education for pastoral ministry. If a woman had the spiritual gift, then she should preach.

Social Activism – Women became increasingly involved in social activism in the 19th century advocating for abolition of slavery, temperance and women’s suffrage. Especially during the period from the 1880s to 1920s, women learned organizational and public speaking skills that allowed them to confidently make their case.

So what led to the reversal of these values? Dr. Hassey list at least four factors that contributed to the shift.

Separatist Fundamentalist Subcultures – Hassey writes that fundamentalism, beginning in the 1920s, began to experience a hardening on the women’s issue. “As evangelicals turned from active social concern and reform to institution-building and theological squabbles, women lost opportunities to speak out on behalf of others as they had done in support of temperance and suffrage.” (53) Women’s voices became muted and subcultures that rejected women formed. “Significantly, fundamentalism widened geographically during the same decades in which it narrowed denominationally.” (53) It moved from north to south and became enmeshed with traditional Southern values that gave women a subordinate place in society.

Institutionalization – “With the rising social status of many churches came the demand for professional, seminary-trained clergy in place of charismatic lay ministry. As frontier churches previously viewed as home mission fields increased in numbers and wealth, congregations could afford to support a married man as minister. Some considered the presence of a female pastor a tacit acknowledgement of a church’s poverty.” (53) Credentialism and decreasing access of women to those credentials had a suppressive effect.

Fundamentalist Reaction to Social Change – “Opposition to women’s public ministry was part of post World War I reaction to vocal, extreme feminism and a perceived decline in womanhood. …The onset of the Depression undoubtedly accelerated the return of fundamentalists and evangelicals to traditional values. … The backlash in conservative Protestant circles against changing social mores can be traced in Moody Monthly magazines of the 1930s. (55) Hassey uses Moody Bible Institute as prime example of this change.

Fundamentalist Exegesis – “In reaction to perceived threats to the family and society, many fundamentalist institutions revised their earlier perspectives on biblical teaching on women. Fundamentalists no longer interpreted the passages in 1 Timothy 2 or 1 Corinthians 14 as occasional advice for specific problems; instead these passages were regarded as giving transcultural principles for all times and places.” (56) “…the premillennialism used by Gordon and Franson to advocate women preachers was utilized by later writers to restrict women. Certain dispensationalists began to interpret women’s leadership as an evil sign of the end times, identifying such women with the whore Babylon.” (56) Turn-of-the-century evangelicals committed to the imminent, premillennial return of Christ had put their intense convictions into action. The urgent need to mobilize workers to spread the gospel worldwide left no time for one sex to remain silent. Later premillennialists apparently retained intellectual assent to Christ’s soon return but relaxed considerably on the urgency of evangelizing the world. They proved more concerned with opposing evolution than promoting evangelism, and thus evangelical recruitment of female preachers subsided.

My first real exposure to this history came from reading I did in the early 1980s for a master's thesis on the narrower history of the Holiness Movement. Authors like Donald W. Dayton, Timothy L. Smith, Charles Edwin Jones, and David Moberg were just a few scholars I remember reading on this topic who wrote in the 1970s. From there, my learning extended to streams of the Church beyond the Holiness stream.

One thing I noticed about Hassey's presentation is that she did not explicitly link the rising demand for women's equality and the slavery abolition movement of the early nineteenth century. Other authors I have read see a direct link in the theology and exegesis that gave rise to abolition and women's equality.

I find that a great many in fundamentalist, evangelical and holiness traditions today are clueless about this aspect of their history. The current debate over the place of women in the Church and society is not something that sprang into existence with radical feminism of the 1960s and later. It is the continuation of a debate that extends back to mid-19th Century evangelicalism, which was in itself an extension of a debate that had been in play since the Reformation, which was rooted in ambivalences that have existed throughout the centuries.

Author:

Janette Hassey received her M.A. from Denver Seminary and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. She is currently a missionary in the Philippines with Christus Victor Ministries. Her publications include No Time for Silence: Evangelical Women in Public Ministry Around the Turn of the Century.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

DBE: Chapter 1 - The Changing Roles of Women in Ministry: The Early Church Through the 18th Century

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part I: Setting the Stage (The Historical Back Drop)

Chapter 1 – The Changing Roles of Women in Ministry: The Early Church Through the 18th Century. By Ruth Tucker

The book's first three chapters set a historical context for the rest of the discussion. In this first chapter, Dr. Tucker walks us very briefly through the period after the New Testament church up through the eighteenth century.

As a preface, Dr. Tucker observes, "On the one hand, women's contributions have been magnified beyond their actual significance; and on the other hand, the story of women has become the story of male discrimination and dominance." (23) She writes, "In actuality, the story of women in the Christian Church is no different from the story of humankind that began at the Garden – a story that promises incredible potential but is severely limited by sin, failure and fallenness." (24) Because the life experiences of women are largely absent from the historical record relative to men's experiences, and because what we know about women usually comes from men who often were conflicted about women, it is hard to make a definitive assessment.

Tucker begins by pointing to martyrs in the early centuries of the Church, highlighting people like Perpetua, Quinta, and Apollonia as some of the earliest mentions of women in the Church. They became models for women of faith. Another type of model woman emerged with mothers of great men like Monica, who raised Augustine, or much later Susannah Wesley, the mother of John and Charles Wesley. Still, as Tucker points out, the pervasive take by the Church over the centuries was that women are inferior.

The Woman, so the argument ran, was the one tempted by Satan and the first to fall into sin. She was more easily deceived than the man and thus would have been a menacing presence in the ivory towers of theological discussion and decision-making forums. (26)

The primary means to stature for women was through humanitarian service. However, Tucker points out that there were women who distinguished themselves because of their intellectual capabilities, like Marcella, who assisted Jerome in translating the Latin Vulgate. When he was absent from Rome, Jerome directed people who sought his counsel to her.

Women's monasticism began in the fourth and fifth centuries. Tucker demonstrates the ebb and flow of influence some abbesses had on some bishops and popes. Mystics such as Hildegard of Bingen, Gertrude of Helfa, and Catherine of Siena, had a major impact on the Church through their instruction.

With the Reformation, the emphasis turned to the biblical text. Mysticism, as well as the cloistered life, was largely discredited. Even so, during the Reformation, there were women like Argula von Stauffer, who Tucker describes as one of Luther's most outspoken defenders, who defended her views in a debate before the Diet of the Empire Nurnberg. (33) Tucker also lifts up 16th century Katherine Zell who, upon the death of her preacher husband Matthew Zell, continued his work and wrote for more than thirty years. Tucker also mentions Teresa of Avila, who brought renewal to the Carmelite convents and the broader Church in the 16th Century.

Tucker presents several Anglo-American women like Anne Hutchinson, Mary Dyer, and Margaret Fell Fox. Fox was the widow of Quaker leader George Fox and, for a time, the de facto movement leader in the late 17th Century. She was "…an outspoken advocate of equality for women in society and among the Quakers." (36-37)

Tucker closes the essay by mentioning some notable Methodist women in the 18th Century. Of Susanna Wesley, John Wesley's mother, she writes:

A strong and spirited woman, she challenged her husband’s efforts to control her political views, and when he later abandoned her and the children, she preached sermons to Anglican parishioners. Indeed, she preached so well that there was standing room only for those who came to hear her expound the Scripture. (37)

Tucker also notes that women like Margaret Davidson, Sarah Crosby, Sarah Miller, and others preached to large crowds. Mary Bosanquet Fletcher began preaching at eighteen (1757) and was still preaching six meetings a week as late as the age of seventy.

I know from other readings that Tucker has just skimmed the surface in this short essay. I think the most significant contribution of Tucker's article is that it illustrates the ambivalence toward women in the life of the Church over the centuries. Women are seen as inferior corrupting influences, and at the same time, they are sought for counsel and guidance. This article shows that the debate over the place of women in the life of the Church is not just something that emerged with modern feminism but has been an ongoing tension throughout the past two millennia.

The Author:

Ruth A. Tucker – Ruth A. Tucker received her M.A. from Baylor University and her Ph.D. from Northern Illinois University. She is associate professor of missiology at Calvin Theological Seminary. Before coming to CTS, she taught for seventeen years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. She was raised in northern Wisconsin in a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church and is now a member of LaGrave Avenue Christian Reformed Church. She is the author of fourteen books including Private Lives of Pastors' Wives; Walking Away from Faith: Unraveling the Mystery of Belief and Unbelief; and the Gold Medallion award-winning From Jerusalem to Iranian Jaya. She is the coauthor (with Walter L. Liefield) of Daughters of the Church. (Note: Dr. Tucker left CTS in the summer of 2006.)

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Discovering Biblical Equality: Prefatory Comments

Tomorrow begins a six-week discussion on the book Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. We will be looking at each of the 29 essays in the book, one weekday at a time over the next six weeks. I will give a brief summary and count on others who have read (or are reading) the book to add to the discussion. Chime in as often or as little as you like. Posts with no comments will not deter me from seeing this through to the end.

As we begin this discussion, I want to make at least three things clear:

• This discussion is for those who want to know and understand more about complementarity without hierarchy position. (It is the position I hold, just in case there is any doubt about where I am coming from.)
• Questions, doubts, and observations are welcome. You need not agree with everything in the book, with me, or with others. However, issues and topics related to complementarity without hierarchy are the subject under discussion, not the suspected motives and character of the participants in this discussion.
• Finally, this is a discussion to discover what complementarity without hierarchy is, not an apocalyptic battle to settle the question for now and eternity. If you are a hierarchicalist who is so thoroughly persuaded that a non-hierarchical position is such an apostasy that you cannot engage in respectful discussion, please consider yourself uninvited. If you are a non-hierarchalist who is so committed to your view that the very questioning of it is a grievous insult, please consider yourself uninvited. I am not interested in refereeing a boxing match between those for whom this issue is not a question.

I know this is a deeply emotional and personal issue for some. Some are deeply worried about the implications, and others have been deeply wounded by some of the issues discussed in this book. Let us be in prayer for each other as the dialog progresses.

Grace and Peace!

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy - Index

Book Discussion:  Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, General Editors.

Index and links to posts.

Prefatory  Comments.

Part I – Setting the Stage (The Historical Backdrop)

Chapter 1 – The Changing Roles of Women in Ministry: The Early Church Through the 18th Century. By Ruth A. Tucker.

Chapter 2 – Evangelical Women in Ministry a Century Ago: The 19th and Early 20th Centuries. By Janette Hassey.

Chapter 3 – Contemporary Evangelicals for Gender Equality. By Ronald W. Pierce.

Part II – Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 4 – Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis 1-3. Richard S. Hess.

Chapter 5 – From the Old Testament Law to New Testament Gospel. Ronald W. Pierce.

Chapter 6 – Women Leaders in the Bible. Linda L Belleville.

Chapter 7 – Jesus’ Treatment of Women in the Gospels. Aida Besancon Spencer.

Chapter 8 – Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Gordon D. Fee

Chapter 9 – Learning in the Assemblies: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Craig S. Keener.

Chapter 10 – Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29. Gordon D. Fee.

Chapter 11 – Mutual Love and Submission in Marriage: Colossians 3:18-19 and Ephesians 5:21-33. I. Howard Marshall.

Chapter 12 – Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Linda L. Belleville.

Chapter 13 – A Silent Witness in Marriage: 1 Peter 3:1-7. Peter H. Davids.

Part III Thinking it Through (Logical and Theological Perspectives)

Chapter 14 – The Priority of Spirit Gifting for Church Ministry. Gordon D. Fee.

Chapter 15 – The Nature of Authority in the New Testament. Walter L. Liefield.

Chapter 16 – Biblical Priesthood and Women in Ministry. Stanley J. Grenz.

Chapter 17 (1st Edition) – God, Gender, and Biblical Metaphor. Judy L. Brown.

Chapter 17 (2nd Edition) - God, Metaphor and Gender: Is the God of the Bible a Male Diety? R. K. McGregor Wright.

Chapter 18 (Part 1) – “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role?” Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination. Rebecca Merrill Grothuis

Chapter 18 (Part 2) – “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role?” Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination. Rebecca Merrill Grothuis

Chapter 19 – The Subordination of Christ and the Subordination of Women. Kevin Giles.

IV. Addressing the Issues (Hermeneutical and Cultural Perspectives)

Chapter 20 – Biblical Hermeneutics: Basic Principles and Questions of Gender. Roger Nicole.

Chapter 21 – Hermeneutics and the Gender Debate. Gordon D. Fee.

Chapter 22 – A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: The Slavery Analogy. William J. Webb.

Chapter 23 – Equality and Homosexuality. William J. Webb

Chapter 24 – Feminism and Abortion. Sulia Mason and Karen Mason.

V. Living it Out (Practical Applications)

Chapter 25 – In Search of Holy Joy: Women and Self-Esteem. Joan Burgess Winfrey.

Chapter 26 – Marriage as a Partnership of Equals. Judith K. Balswick and Jack O. Balswick.

Chapter 27 – Nature, Culture and Gender Complementarity. Cynthia Neal Kimball.

Chapter 28 – Helping the Church Understand Biblical Equality. Mimi Haddad and Alvera Mickelsen.

Chapter 29 – Toward Reconciliation: Healing the Schism. Alice P. Mathews.

My Concluding Thoughts